U.S.A The New Third Reich
spidersthread
George Bush tries to mental masturbate his way into starting another
action
against Saddam Hussein and his horde in Iraq - this new cult is
spreading its evil Eagles Wings across the globe and is intending on
devouring every country in its path by manipulating them with a huge
media televised campaign to gain control over the masses as his one
time predicessor Adolf Hitler had managed to do during the second
world war in Germany - the only difference now it is not Arianism but
Americanism - who will save us as the time nears for war - will his
calling on Jean Chretien for support bring with it more death to our
homeland of Canada - what blackmail techniques will be used in order
for George Bush to gain the support that he needs as he has already
collected amongst his many merry band of cowards Tony Blair - the
United Nations does not want to have more war actions put against the
people of Iraq - but as the United States continues to spread lies and
rumors to the effect of telling the world that everyone is in grave
danger of nuclear attack and chemical weapons one can only come to
laughter - it is entirely ridiculous to think that George Bush is now
totally following in his fathers footsteps and wants to only get the
job done that his father did not have the guts to do - the only
problem is - is that after so many years having gone by there is no
crisis or need for defence or offense but only the self serving
egotistical need of a tyrant gone mad - George Bush needs to get a
grip and so do the people who support his ignorant actions - we are
all fed up of him healing unemployment in the United States by
increasing his arsenal stock piles towards war instead of taking the
prosperity that abounds their and using it for peace.
Usenet Legend
Mr. David Voisine
http://davidvoisine.tripod.com
Mr Ed
David Visine, obviously suffering from myopia, wrote:
> U.S.A The New Third Reich
<all sorts of horse manure snipped right out of there>
> Usenet Legend In His Own Mind
> Mr. David Voisine
> http://davidvoisine.tripod.com
Wylbur, get another carrot, heck make it two - this guy's eyesight is all
but gone. He can't see the forest for the trees.
Mr. Ed
"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"
Defender of Enormous Manhood
"spidersthread" <spm...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5911006b.02100...@posting.google.com...
Mr. Legend you do know that war and propaganda are inseperable, do you not.
Of course, with the fiasco in Vietnam its important to public support that
Iraq be painted as black and as dangerous as can be. But if you are looking
to draw comparisions to Hitler, your hero ( recall your free download of
Mein Kampf), its Saddam that has modelled his regime after Hitler.
Gee, I seem to recall Isreal blowing up an Atomic Reactor, over 20 years ago
in Iraq, technology they got from the French, who are a bunch of cowards
anyways, and he was diverting that technology to build a neclear weapons
program, even back then. This world is dangerous enough with "responsible
governments having neclear devices, and you don't think its dangerous to
allow a madman to possess them? Well the bombing didn't shut down that
program in Iraq.
We know Saddam will use chemical weapons, if you doubt that, why don't you
take a trip to the north, where you can see the Kurdish survivors, Iraqi
people. Now if you can gas your own people, what about your enemies? He
marched on Kuwait. He lobbed missles into Isreal. He's executed all his
opposition. He harbours known terrorists.
The only difference between Bush and Hitler is Americanism versus Nazism?
Well that is one big fucking difference!
Tell you what, enjoy Roch's wedding and shut up. You ain't no legend, except
in your own mind!
Bernie
in Italy, France and elsewhere. Thank heavens! It's about time.
Germany oppose Bush's policies. Only Brownnose Blair supports him.
Bernie
Mr Ed <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message news:<3D9F88C3...@w3source.net>...
Alma Peters
I often wondered if the Germans were brainwashed in the same manor by
Hitler. I'm sure the American education system is to blame for the
such ignorance. They aren't even enlightened about their neighbours
let alone the countries Europe. Ignorant uneducated citizens
can be moulded by their govt. if they lack the proper information.
Watching American news programing is sickening. Totally biased. I am
sick of hearing " We are the best country in the world in which to
live ". Guess the American media propaganda machine doesn't find it
newsworthy to report every year that they are never at the top as
stated by the list of best countries in the world in which to live by
The United Nations. I am also sick of hearing that the middle east is
against America because they are jealous of the freedoms that they
hold. Bullshit. The middle east is against America because they can't
mind their own business. If they weren't oil producing countries
American wouldn't give a flying fig. The people of the middle east
know that American wants of control them. The Palestinians are angry (
AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR TACTICS ) because for generations they
have been living in extreme poverty . They live in run down camps with
no future. They don't have homes, jobs, food, medicine, health care or
education. AS I STATED EARLIER LACK OF EDUCATION LEADS TO BRAINWASHING
NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY YOU ARE FROM. These people don't have a future,
their children and grandchildren for generations to come have no sight
of hope. No wonder death is so appealing. Keep the American govt. out
of it and give these people a homeland. For the first time in my life
I agreed with John Cretien. It is the poverty that creates bitterness
for the have countries. American isn't the best country in the world
in which to live and they aren't being attacked because the middle
east is jealous of their freedoms. A final thought. I agree that Sadam
Hussein needs to be replaced. But isn't that the job of the United
Nations not the United States. Isn't that what all our veterans fought
for? If we take Sadam Hussein out who says that the next guy in charge
won't be worse?
Striker
not necessarily a role that country historically wanted. While it may seem
selfish what the country is doing now with Iraq. Saddam is not a man to be
trusted. Sooner or later it will soon have to be dealt with. If it isn't
going to be the US then who would. The Europeans oppose all military action
and look where it got them with Hitler. If someone wants to draw a parallel
maybe they should look there and see what they did in Kosovo. Or should I
say didn't do until it was too late. They have historically let people like
Saddam walk all over them and it always bites them in the ass. I might not
like George Bush, but at least he has the guts to do something about Saddam
now before the trouble finds its way to our side of the globe.
"Alma Peters" <junkadver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8236b6.02100...@posting.google.com...
Jack
"Striker" <klin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uq111n9...@corp.supernews.com...
> It is the rest of the world who has made the US the world's policeman.
No one can make anyone do anything they don't want to..
>It is not necessarily a role that country historically wanted. While it may
seem selfish what the country is doing now with Iraq. Saddam is not a man to
be
> trusted.
Do you trust "Dubya" ?? Not I..
There's a lot worse out there than Old Saddam...Look at Saudi...where do you
think the majority of the Sept 11 hijackers came from? And, the Royal (?)
family there rule with an iron fist. No better....but...they sell the west
oil relatively cheaply...hmm..might have something here...
Josh
country and go on killing rampages ... Lets shoot men, women, and innocent
children with machine guns because they were carrying stones... all in the
name of self-defence ..
Nobody called Israel tourists when they invaded Lebanon and killed over
250,000 innocent people in their so called war in the 80's ...
But all of a sudden Iraq is harbouring terriosts .. The biggest terriosts of
out time is the USA and Israel ... It's time to stop and really looking at
the state of the world!
"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <catw...@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:apWn9.144899$q41....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Defender of Enormous Manhood
"Josh" <s_w...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:om6o9.37657$Aiq1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Why don't we start with Israel .. I suppose its okay to bulldoze through a
> country and go on killing rampages ... Lets shoot men, women, and
innocent
> children with machine guns because they were carrying stones... all in the
> name of self-defence ..
>
Well, first Isreal has opted NOT to use its nuclear arsenal.
I think their position is they want peace, and to live in harmony with their
neighbours.
But you must agree that is a difficult position to allow your citizens to be
blown up, and not respond to security issues that creates.
The U.N. has a position, which Isreal would agree to live with, if its
civilian population was not constantly in jeopardy of losing lives, limbs
and living in fear of that kind of action. The USA has a position, which is
close to the position of the UN. The palistinians also have a position, and
that is also one of peace.
But a few extremists will not abandon the goal of the destruction of Isreal,
and keep derailing and sabotaging any real efforts to establish a viable
peace in the region.
Are you saying Isreal goes too far in defence of their own security?
Perhaps. Violence is really a solution to nothing. But violence is real, and
its not limited to the middle east. Of course Isreal was brought into being
through the use of terrorism, only we called it Freedom fighters. We also
called the terrorists in Afganistan, freedom fighters too, when we were
arming them to fight the Soviet Union back in the 80's. And by the way,
Afganistan was the UUSR's Vietnam. Heavy losses and finally defeat. Now its
clear American military is vastly superior to old soviet military.
Islam is a nation. Its a religious nation. There is no seperation of
religion and state. Most often religious leaders are political leaders. Now
we non-Americans know that America is exploitive economically. Why they buy
billions and billions of dollars worth of oil from the middle east each
year. And that is after having their assests seized and their companies
kicked out of the oil production game. The price of oil is fixed by OPEC,
and that too is exploitation. But worse yet, very few countries distribute
that vast wealth among the population, and that is exploitation of your own
population. But I suppose that is the way of Islam.
The terrorists have a position too. They want America to get the fuck out of
Islam and all Islamic nations.
Get out of their politics, get out of their economics and get out of their
countries. Well America is dependant upon oil. We all know that, and so are
we. Neither of us produces enough oil to meet our demands.
Our society, our economy cannot capitulate with the will of some Islamic
fundamentalists. And know that its a minorty that even accept violence as a
solution. Al Quida is heavily financed. Billions coming from rich Saudi
princes. But lets look at Iraq. They were defeated by America, and have been
punished with sanctions. And sanctions hurt the population, not just the
leaders who can't sell their oil. Iraq is the 3rd largest producer of oil.
But is not selling any. They hate the USA. And they have good reasons. They
have given safe heaven to Al Quada terrorists. They have thwarted weapons
inspections for 11 years. They continue their weapon's programs. We know
this to be fact through our Intellegence gathering services, facts hotly
denied.
While the threat of Iraq giving Al Quada chemical or biological weapons is
scarey, the thought of them giving Al Quada a nuclear device or devices is
very scarey. Its way more scarey than the cold war. And why, because both
America and Russia were scared stiff of the thought of nuclear devistation.
Well Al Quada is not afraid at all. Why the one that does it will get a
special place in heaven.
Well, I for one do not want to see a nuclear bombing anywhere in North
America...the destructive power is awesome, but the radition kills more, and
contaminates the environment. If Iraq is even suspected, forget indisputable
proof, of having nuclear bomb technology, that is a threat which is very
real, and very deadly.
I support any pre-emptive action, because the use of such weapons is
something that just cannot be allowed to happen - under any circumstances.
The American intellegence gathering network is superb, boilstered by the
highest of technologies. There spy satelites have so much resolution that
they can read the business card you are holding in your hand. Its very hard
to hid shit from them. And forget about Iraqi traitors who spill the beans.
Not to mention the operatives in the field. Telling the public exactly what
evidence they have would inform their enemies of what technology they have
and how effective it is, and has been. You don't show your cards in a poker
game, or in war, or in brinkmanship. It weakens your hand.
Of course this war on terrorism is economically motivated. If there was no
oil in the middle east, then America would have as little interest as they
do in strife ridden areas of the world that have nothing to offer them. Yet
without oil there is no economy. I suppose there is some truth in the fact
that until we ween ourselves from oil, and find alternate forms of
economical power, that oil and acess to it will continue to shape America's
foreign policy.
As far as Isreal is concerned, they tried to live in peace, and got war.
They vanquished the war mongers and took land to buffer zone their land from
future invasion. Yes, it has been illegal to expand a nation by war since
WWII when International law was created to stop that practice. There are UN
resolutions demanding the return of occupied lands. But what has been clear
over the years it that Isreal uses force, and sometimes excessive force in
response to attacks or planned attacks on herself. And every country has the
right to defend itself under International law. Isreal is prepared to return
the lands, as part of a negotiated lasting peace.
The palistinian people want a sustained lasting peace. They want to trade
with Isreal and build their nation and economy. But interspursed among their
population are warriors of GOD, who do not want peace, just the destruction
of Isreal. These people are just as much enemies of Palistine as their are
Isreal, considering both Isreal and Palistine want peace.
Which brings us back to Islam, the fundamentalists who want America out so
that they can all gang up on Isreal and destroy her. Yet that won't happen.
What will happen is that Isreal when faced with extinction, will use their
nuclear arsenal and everybody in the region loses, and America has to wait
100 years before they can get the oil because of radioactive contamination.
So there is a solution, and all parties want that solution to take place,
except for the terrorist cells of various kinds, who are a true minority,
and are more dangerous to the civillian population, because that is what
terrorists target, civillians. They can't take on an army. So they strike
fear into the population, with the intent to sway the policies of the West
from within. Nobody wants to be blown up, and when that fear is real,
because it happens nearly everyday, such as in Isreal, you end up with
frightened populations.
That leaves two choices, obey the will of the terrorists, or hunt them down
and bring them to justice, even if that justice is their execution. I for
one don't like the idea of freezing in the dark. Do you? Its not like we are
taking their oil. They have way, way more than they could ever hope to use,
and they charge us heavily.
You know there was a time not too long ago when oil was $1 a barrel, now
over $30/barrel yuo understand why workers are not getting ahead, even with
the vast savings and efficiencies that computer techology has brought us.
All those gains have been more than offset by the ever increasing cost of
oil. And its not based on cost of production, its based on how much can we
demand for it, without forcing them into war.
Just keep in perspective how much we have been taken for because we continue
to rely of fossil fuels???
If OPEC set the price of oil at say $100/barrel that would likely lead to
invassion and annexation.
So unless you want to heat your home with wood, and walk to work you'd
better learn a few things about the world. It is not an idealistic utopia.
It is hard, and its all business.
> Nobody called Israel tourists when they invaded Lebanon and killed over
> 250,000 innocent people in their so called war in the 80's ...
>
I think 250k may be a slight exaggeration, but hey how would you like it if
New York started lobbing missiles into your neighbourhood with regularity
and impunity? And those terrorists wove themselves in amongst the civillian
population, making obsured targets? It's not like those 250,000 people
couldn't have banded together and forced the terrosits out of their country?
The civial casualties were high because the terrorists immbedded themselves
among civillians. While armies today are hesitant to kill civillians, if
they are in the way of a military operation, they become ghosts. I guess you
are suggesting Isreal should just let its civillians get killed and turn the
other check......well that is a christian thing to do......the jewish thing
is the "eye for an eye" thang!
> But all of a sudden Iraq is harbouring terriosts .. The biggest terriosts
of
> out time is the USA and Israel ... It's time to stop and really looking
at
> the state of the world!
>
Well I will agree that America and Isreal have had to use their military
might at times, but I would argue that they are terrorists. And since you
don't understand that the state of the world is first from an economic
perspective, and way down the list from a socail perspective, I think your
perceptions are skewed, big time!
wideiris
it's normal. when one of those people is your
relative/wife/sister/brother/father/child.... you'll finally realize that
the killing should have stopped ages ago. it's so sad to see politicians
deciding the fate of innocent people. to see fat safe rich politicians
deciding 'inadvertantly' that your family is going to die. and for the
people who live in that fat safe rich nation to never give a second thought
to your family, who died so they could drive cars. and even though some guy
on some board said "we really pay a lot for it though", you still didn't get
why he couldn't see the bigger picture: money comes and goes, people's lives
are lost forever. the second you realize that the ten dollar bill in your
hand is like the lives of a small family, you'll be much less apt to spend
it on gas.
it's just fucking money. every single law in the world upholds one value:
the right to life. (no abortion and capital punishment arguement here, i
have too much to say on those topics :) murder is the highest crime. why
do we do it with such reckless abandon?
we should not send any troops to Iraq. we all know it's about oil and
money. i refuse to stand behind a government that will kill people to get
it. it's blatantly fucking evil and if there is a hell, every single one of
those bastards is going straight down, and the sooner the better.
"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <catw...@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:Bsio9.39683$Aiq1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Defender of Enormous Manhood
Death is a normal part of life, and unfortunately so is war.
I beleive since recorded history there has been only 10 years of peace.
So when we talk about normal, war is normal behavior for people.
And you are quite correct, a few powerful rich men decide when we go to war
and over what we go to war.
But what do you do when peace will not be accepted? Yes, you can argue on
whose terms, but ultimately there has to be compromise.
Say we do not go to war, and a major population center is nuked, because
Iraq was allowed to develop these kinds of weapons? You are suggesting that
we wait til then, or do you say we finally got what we deserved?
What is unfortunate is the people are often not for war, and are much more
compomizing than their leaders ever would be able. There are imagined
threats and real threats. Unlike you, I see a real threat.
Ther is nothing I would liek to see more than to have the UN weapon
inspectors back, free to do their job, without interference or restrictions
and know that Iraq has abandoned its will to dominate and terrorize.
And that is in process. What is also being put into process is the
consequences for non-compliance.
Let the UN do their job, or we will do it for them, to ensure those weapons
are not used on us.
Maybe you want to see those weapons use on us? I don't.
While the USA may distort the truth to their advantage, there is a truth
behind their claims.
Only Iraq denies that fact. Maybe you do to? And I can see how this would be
more disturbing to Iraqi decendants, or any decendants from that part of the
world. It's their friends and family living back home.
24 Canadians were among the victims of the WTC, so we have been attacked
already!
"wideiris" <wide...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Iio9.153977$q41.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mr Ed
Defender, you should know better than to talk good common horse sense to a bunch
of horses asses.
But good points nevertheless.
Wylbur? Give Defender a couple sugar cubes, he's earned 'em.
wideiris
and i hope you stick to your guns when the US comes looking for our fresh
water. and they declare us 'terrorists' and claim we are harboring all
kinds of evilness, and they storm in, kill our families, and lay pipe into
our lakes.
injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
innocent until proven guilty? not in your eyes. a little media two-step
and you're all up in arms about nukes. for the record: iraq does not have
nukes. search the bbc website. they recently did an interview with a man
who was a weapons inspector. he said it would be almost impossible for iraq
to have nukes. they did think they were creating various deadly virii and
gasses, but then again.... who isn't? even canada has some. so i guess it's
a matter of perspective. you see someone as 'evil' because they were
branded as such. you back up his evilness with his 'invasion of kuwait'. i
don't see anyone throwing the same shit at america's military history, no
one examing objectively what has gone on over here. in my opinion, the west
is the greatest terrorist force on the planet. attacking iraq will only
aggravate those who view the west as 'evil', and increase the violence.
silly rabbit...
and war is natural? i didn't know that. is that just an isolated gene or
something? no nature vs. nurture debate, no question about greed tossed
into the salad that is your bullshit? war is not NATURAL. saying so
equates killing with our being animals. if you say we are animals, i ask
you how we learned compassion (or maybe we all didn't), how we learned to
think, to understand the concept of 'I'. i was under the impression that
mankind had seperated itself from the 'natural' world by learning to make
decisions based on 'moral values' instead of the "eat/fuck/kill" mentality
that rules this special 'natural' world you speak of.
twelve words for you dude: "think outside the box" (repeat 3 times)
"Mr Ed" <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message
news:3DA1E4AE...@w3source.net...
MiBusiness
why has no-one commented that George Bush is in a conflict of interest
situation. Last week, he reported that Saddam set a plot to kill his father
George Sr. His decision to go after Iraq has more to do with a personal
dislike than a real and present danger.
(I also think it is a distraction. Once the US realized that they could not
satisfy Americans with the head of Osama, they had to find a stationary
target., Iraq)
"Bernie" <bleo...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:bb4a44fe.0210...@posting.google.com...
Josh
"wideiris" <wide...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W0mo9.40798$Aiq1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Josh
War is man made and has been an excuse behind propaganda to begin it ...
War began with greedy, self-righteous, politicians ... If we as a society
stood against it, and revolted there would be no war in the world, except
society is easily swayed to believe in whatever cause super powers set out
to feed us.
As for 24 Canadians dying .. the majority of the dead were immigrants living
in the states .. took a look at the roster of names ... few were American
born and breed.
This is not a war on terrorism, its war for power and money. War has always
been about power and money, not freedom.
If Israel truly wanted peace they would give back the land they unlawfully
took and end the strife in the middle east .. This war has been going on
since the 60's ... Does it take 30 fucking years to get the message across?
They don't want peace, they want it their way and only their way.
They have killed more innocent people in the last 20 years than Saddam and
Osma put together could ever imagine to kill .. Terrorism doesn't have to
be born in a society that's oppressed and poor... It can breed in Western
countries as well .. so it has.
"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <catw...@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:4uko9.154138$q41....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mr Ed
wideiris wrote:
> i weep for mankind....
Get him a hankerchief Wylbur.
> and i hope you stick to your guns when the US comes looking for our fresh
> water. and they declare us 'terrorists' and claim we are harboring all
> kinds of evilness, and they storm in, kill our families, and lay pipe into
> our lakes.
Won't happen fella. Not when they can buy it real cheap with the favourable
exchange rate, running about 50 percent right now.
> injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Does that include the injustice of Saddam Hussein oppressing his own people with
murder, rape and mayhem? Developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapon
systems, building opulent palaces for himself (14 at last count) when his own
people are suffering? Yep, that is a threat to justice everywhere. Glad to have
you on board.
> innocent until proven guilty? not in your eyes. a little media two-step
> and you're all up in arms about nukes. for the record: iraq does not have
> nukes. search the bbc website. they recently did an interview with a man
> who was a weapons inspector.
Ah you must be talking about Scott "The Iraqis paid me $400,000 US" Ritter.
> he said it would be almost impossible for iraq
> to have nukes. they did think they were creating various deadly virii and
> gasses, but then again.... who isn't? even canada has some.
But the difference Wylbur, is that for all of his madcap antics, Jean Chretien
isn't likely to unleash a chemical weapons attack upon the Canadian Alliance.
(although there are probably some Liberals who would support such a move.) The
critical point (which you overlook) is what Saddam Hussein is capable of -- and
based upon his past behaviour, he's capable of anything. Try to localize your
viewpoint here 'wideiris', imagine the carnage that the Concordia nutbucket
Fabrikant could have wreaked if he had been able to acquire a nuclear weapon
instead of mere firearms, eh? Now you're cookin'. Saddam Hussein is in the same
category, a true sociopath. What do you think he would do tomorrow morning if he
suddenly woke up to find a few thermonuclear weapons in his military inventory?
Now that is something to weep about, should it ever happen..
> so i guess it's
> a matter of perspective. you see someone as 'evil' because they were
> branded as such.
Saddam branded himself. Nobody else had to do it for him.
> you back up his evilness with his 'invasion of kuwait'. i
> don't see anyone throwing the same shit at america's military history, no
> one examing objectively what has gone on over here.
So your gambit is 'moral equivalence'. That's a losing hand Wylbur, fold your
cards now.
> in my opinion, the west
> is the greatest terrorist force on the planet. attacking iraq will only
> aggravate those who view the west as 'evil', and increase the violence.
> silly rabbit...
You do sound like a silly rabbit. A silly rabbit with absolutely no grasp of
history. Better get back in your hole.
> and war is natural? i didn't know that. is that just an isolated gene or
> something? no nature vs. nurture debate, no question about greed tossed
> into the salad that is your bullshit? war is not NATURAL. saying so
> equates killing with our being animals. if you say we are animals, i ask
> you how we learned compassion (or maybe we all didn't), how we learned to
> think, to understand the concept of 'I'. i was under the impression that
> mankind had seperated itself from the 'natural' world by learning to make
> decisions based on 'moral values' instead of the "eat/fuck/kill" mentality
> that rules this special 'natural' world you speak of.
War IS natural (not my words, but I'll address your comments) because humankind
is not peaceful by nature. When nation-states confront each other and are unable
to work out a diplomatic solution, they resort to war. Like that saying goes,
'war is just continued diplomacy that employs violence', or words to that
effect.
Remember this, 'peace follows victory'. It all depends on who is the victor, and
who is the vanquished. What side do you want to be on Wylbur?
> twelve words for you dude: "think outside the box" (repeat 3 times)
Here's four for you:
"Don't Be An Ostrich"
wideiris
read it in the papers?
good for you... all by yourself?
"Mr Ed" <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message
news:3DA23953...@w3source.net...
Defender of Enormous Manhood
tell me he is a very, very bad man. But why should I believe them?
In discussions with members of the Toronto Kuwaiti community, they impressed
their opinion that Saddam was a very, very bad man. But why should I believe
them?
Who the heck are they anyways? They are obviously biased! Don't you think?
I think the guy with the "badest ass" is Bush.
Look at Canada! Proof that you don't have to have an army or nukes, even if
you could.
And look at all those war dollars you can put into things like Medicare or
Eductaion???
You can be fairly successful economically, and be fairly respected on the
world stage.
Why can't Saddam be happy with that? Why does he need weapon's of mass
destruction.
The guy likes to fuck with people and countries. Do you trust him? Why?
Because we want their oil? Maybe its we don't want to be nuked?
Iraq has a nuclear program. They almost completed a nuclear reactor, until
it was blown up.
They have the know how. And they have reason to direct it at the west.
"wideiris" <wide...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DaAo9.44614$Aiq1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
wideiris
sanctions placed on your country?food for oil??? that's a little
exploitative, isn't it? in favor of the west, non? so people are dying
there because of a lack of food and medical supplies. but that's saddam's
fault. i think it's not so simple as you paint it. the powers in the west
have placed sanctions on iraq that will cause instability in the region...
that's their purpose.
fuck, why is it so hard to get this shit through to people? everyone is
painting it black and white, when it is incredibly grey.
when one country imposes its will on another, we condemn them. when that
country is backed by us, it's 'peace keeping'. if i was an iraqi, i'd be
VERY VERY angry with the united states too. who the hell are you to tell us
that we can't have arms? you do... your friends do... who the hell are
you to tell us we can't have medicine?
shit, bring it closer to home: cuba. fidel was once labelled the biggest
threat in the world by the american government. 387 years later, the guy's
still going, and no one is really scared of him anymore... go figure. it
seems the media got tired of pointing a finger at him saying he was going to
do something, and then he woulnd't.... interesting (chicken little). has
iraq EVER done anything to the United States? so why are they really there?
damn, man, this is so easy.
do americans need a visual of people being made to 'pay' for being
'terrorists'? damn straight. the way i see it, the war on terrorism
doesn't have any visible victories, just a byline in a newspaper. there are
no regimes to topple. so the government is going after one. the 'terrorism
scapegoat'. something we can see, digest. it's sickening.
and your friends who say saddam is bad, did they also say "he's building
nukes.. kill him and the people that live there, they deserve to die?".
hmmmm....... ask next time. ask what 'bad man' means to them. then ask if
all 'bad men' deserve to die. then we can all be judge and jury and execute
whoever the hell we deem 'bad'. come to think of it, let's just kill
everybody who wasn't born here. that'll cure a whole bunch of stuff!
yipppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <catw...@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:rFBo9.209975$8b1.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mr Ed
wideiris wrote:
so you've met saddam, and you know he's a vewy vewy bad man? or did you
read it in the papers?good for you... all by yourself?
No, I've not personally met Saddam. But if you're looking for information, here are a couple of references from sources that are by no means U.S.-friendly, so unfortunately you won't be able to claim that they are doing the bidding of the U.S., ok Wylbur?
ENJOY.
Amnesty International:
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140081997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ
Human Rights Watch 2002 Report on Iraq
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/mena4.html
Mr Ed
wideiris wrote:
> does anyone in the room know what it's like to have massive massive
> sanctions placed on your country?food for oil??? that's a little
> exploitative, isn't it? in favor of the west, non? so people are dying
> there because of a lack of food and medical supplies. but that's saddam's
> fault. i think it's not so simple as you paint it. the powers in the west
> have placed sanctions on iraq that will cause instability in the region...
> that's their purpose.
No, the sanctions were placed upon Iraq because Iraq refused to comply with the
agreements they signed off on at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Those
sanctions were placed upon Iraq by the United Nations, and the international
community (with a few exceptions) likewise signed off. The sanctions could have
been avoided if Saddam had not chosen to continue his programmes of
chemical/biological/nuclear weapons development. The 'food for oil' scheme was
intended to allow Iraq to obtain vital resources and products needed by the
Iraqi people. Saddam chose to use the revenues to fuel his military and weapons
development. The Iraqi people are suffering only due to the megalomania of their
leader.
> fuck, why is it so hard to get this shit through to people? everyone is
> painting it black and white, when it is incredibly grey.
It may be 'grey' to you, but the issues are quite clear cut. The reason you
probably view this as 'grey' is that you are unable to deal with black and
issues like 'right and wrong', 'good and evil', etc. That is what 'moral
equivalence' can do to your view of the world.
> when one country imposes its will on another, we condemn them. when that
> country is backed by us, it's 'peace keeping'. if i was an iraqi, i'd be
> VERY VERY angry with the united states too. who the hell are you to tell us
> that we can't have arms? you do... your friends do... who the hell are
> you to tell us we can't have medicine?
See above. The United States (nor is the rest of the world) is not an enemy of
the Iraqi people -- the enemy of the Iraqi people is the Iraqi dictatorship
which oppresses them and causes them unnecessary hardship. You ought to consider
a different career path -- being a professional apologist for Saddam requires
more intellectual tools than I think you have available in your bag of
rhetorical tricks.
> shit, bring it closer to home: cuba. fidel was once labelled the biggest
> threat in the world by the american government. 387 years later, the guy's
> still going, and no one is really scared of him anymore... go figure. it
> seems the media got tired of pointing a finger at him saying he was going to
> do something, and then he woulnd't.... interesting (chicken little). has
> iraq EVER done anything to the United States? so why are they really there?
> damn, man, this is so easy.
I suggest you consult the United Nations own report on human rights abuses in
Fidel's little workers paradise. Not one free election has been held in that
place since he seized power in 1959. It's not a question of anyone being
'scared' of Castro, but the Cuban people suffer not much differently than the
Iraqis because like Iraq, Cuba is ruled by a dictator that allows no dissent, no
opposition political parties, and employs torture and other reprehensible means
to retain political power.
And FYI, Iraq has fired upon U.S. and U.K. aircraft enforcing U.N. approved
'no-fly zones' over 700 times. Iraq is a rogue nation, in violation of U.N.
resolutions and directives, and for all the public utterances by their Arab
neighbours, Iraq has no allies that it can count on. Saddam is isolated by
virtue of his own abominable behaviour. Now THAT is easy to see.
Unless one is an ostrich.
> do americans need a visual of people being made to 'pay' for being
> 'terrorists'? damn straight. the way i see it, the war on terrorism
> doesn't have any visible victories, just a byline in a newspaper. there are
> no regimes to topple. so the government is going after one. the 'terrorism
> scapegoat'. something we can see, digest. it's sickening.
Straw Man. Set Him Up. Knock Him Down.
You're too obvious.
> and your friends who say saddam is bad, did they also say "he's building
> nukes.. kill him and the people that live there, they deserve to die?".
> hmmmm....... ask next time. ask what 'bad man' means to them. then ask if
> all 'bad men' deserve to die. then we can all be judge and jury and execute
> whoever the hell we deem 'bad'. come to think of it, let's just kill
> everybody who wasn't born here. that'll cure a whole bunch of stuff!
> yipppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Thank you for displaying your intellectual immaturity for all to see.
Gosh Wylbur, he sounds upset.
RiverRunner
> > is the greatest terrorist force on the planet. attacking iraq will only
> > aggravate those who view the west as 'evil', and increase the violence.
> > silly rabbit...
>
> You do sound like a silly rabbit. A silly rabbit with absolutely no grasp
of
> history. Better get back in your hole.
Sounds like Mr. Ed should be the one to check out the history books.
Mr. Ed should also stop watching CNN so much and watch some news reports
from around the world to get a different perspective on the situation. But
alas,..it sounds like Mr. Ed is addicted to the American point of view.
They sure did sucker him in.
wideiris
of blacks, hollywood's treatment of women. wow, you're hardcore one-sided
rah-rah. it's scary to think outside the box, i know. my point is: you sit
on a pedestal of moral superiority when you condemn others. as a wise jew
once said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". go ahead...
"Mr Ed" <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message
news:3DA2EEC8...@w3source.net...
Tim
> Watching American news programing is sickening. Totally biased. I am
> sick of hearing " We are the best country in the world in which to
> live ". Guess the American media propaganda machine doesn't find it
> newsworthy to report every year that they are never at the top as
> stated by the list of best countries in the world in which to live by
> The United Nations.
Funny, also, however that the places which "are" amongst the best are
also the
ones that have far lower immigration rates than America. How many
Americans go
to schools in those countries, then compare it with how many of their
people
come to America to learn?
> I am also sick of hearing that the middle east is
> against America because they are jealous of the freedoms that they
> hold. Bullshit. The middle east is against America because they can't
> mind their own business. If they weren't oil producing countries
> American wouldn't give a flying fig.
If those countries weren't oil-producing countries, then they'd be
absolutely nothing at all. As it stands now, they are resource-sinks
on the global economy. They are, of themselves, entirely non-viable
countries (according to the United Nations report written by Arabs at
http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/). Their culture died around 300 years
ago.
They were against other countries BEFORE those other countries started
meddling in their affairs. In fact, the region has never known peace.
They've warred with each other for as long as they've recorded
history.
> The people of the middle east
> know that American wants of control them. The Palestinians are angry (
> AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR TACTICS ) because for generations they
> have been living in extreme poverty . They live in run down camps with
> no future. They don't have homes, jobs, food, medicine, health care or
> education. AS I STATED EARLIER LACK OF EDUCATION LEADS TO BRAINWASHING
> NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY YOU ARE FROM. These people don't have a future,
> their children and grandchildren for generations to come have no sight
> of hope. No wonder death is so appealing.
And that is their fault. They've ELECTED this. They've been poor
since before America existed as a country. Their educational systems
are horrible NOT because they are poor (in part, in some countries,
that is the reason) -- the primary reason is because their educational
system is institutionally crippled by their religious influences.
In a BEST case scenario, you could blame America for involvement since
1948 in that region. That would be around a single generation.
That's not "generations"... More technically, you'd have to blame
Britain, but that is too technical, because that would mean you'd have
to have studied something called "history"...
Iran is a great example. They are economically poor now. This is
AFTER America pulled out. When America was "involved" they were
almost OK (some say wealthy, but wealth at that time was in the hands
of very few). After they "kicked America out" they had total control.
Well, because of systemic investments in markets that didn't keep up,
they went broke as a country. Iraq made investments in opposing
markets and Iraq actually did well (investing wise). Well, Iran also
became more militant and stricter in their version of Islam. Today,
they are doing pretty darned bad. Why? Could be because they
VOLUNTARILY entered into a 10 year war with their Islamic neigbor,
Iraq.
Well, they MADE choices, we didn't interfere, and look... like
everyone else in the region -- they are volatile, they hate ALL
non-Muslims, they are super militant and don't get along well with
their neighbors. They don't even like certain types of Muslims.
> Keep the American govt. out
> of it and give these people a homeland. For the first time in my life
> I agreed with John Cretien. It is the poverty that creates bitterness
> for the have countries. American isn't the best country in the world
> in which to live and they aren't being attacked because the middle
> east is jealous of their freedoms. A final thought. I agree that Sadam
> Hussein needs to be replaced. But isn't that the job of the United
> Nations not the United States. Isn't that what all our veterans fought
> for? If we take Sadam Hussein out who says that the next guy in charge
> won't be worse?
It's not the poverty. Poverty might be a contributing factor. But,
througout history, this kind of hatred comes from either religion or a
failure to accept responsibility for your actions.
America has been around for only 200 or so years, and has been
"meddling" for only around 100-150 of them. These countries have
millenia of recorded hatred and their actions and behaviour has not
changed an iota in all that time.
What about the other countries involved? Like France and Germany and
Russia? Oh -- that's right... everyone forgets that France, China and
Russia were or are the main provider of weapons and arms and military
support to Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (with Ukraine, Brazil and Italy
providing a good deal as well). Funny, nobody complains about their
involvement. That would be because the people not mentioning them are
incapable of independant thought, they probably rely on the National
Enquirer or the Page 3 girl for their news.
Mr Ed
RiverRunner wrote:
au contraire. I never watch CNN. Too unreliable.
Perhaps Runner has been stranded on the River too long.
Mr Ed
"The FAMOUS Mr Ed"
Mr Ed
wideiris wrote:
apply them to canada as well. our treatment of natives, america's treatment
of blacks, hollywood's treatment of women. wow, you're hardcore one-sided
rah-rah. it's scary to think outside the box, i know. my point is: you sit
on a pedestal of moral superiority when you condemn others. as a wise jew
once said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". go ahead...
What you're missing in all this is that it's not about Canada's treatments of natives, nor is it about how America treats blacks, or how Hollywood treats women (?).
Try not to evade the subject at hand?
The subject was Iraq. The references were supplied. Apparently you have no interest and prefer to just spout off.
Mr. Ed
"The FAMOUS Mr Ed"
"Mr Ed" <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message
wideiris
>
> The subject was Iraq. The references were supplied. Apparently you have no
> interest and prefer to just spout off.
thanks for finally showing me that you're unable to see the bigger picture.
you may post in reply, but i won't be back to follow the thread. i'm
through. although you seem educated, i don't think we can walk down this
road any further due to a few of your limited abilities, and your
progressive and escalating use of insults as an attempted form at feeling
comfortably superior. good luck in your life.
"Mr Ed" <E...@w3source.net> wrote in message
news:3DA3876F...@w3source.net...
>
>
> wideiris wrote:
>
> > apply them to canada as well. our treatment of natives, america's
treatment
> > of blacks, hollywood's treatment of women. wow, you're hardcore
one-sided
> > rah-rah. it's scary to think outside the box, i know. my point is: you
sit
> > on a pedestal of moral superiority when you condemn others. as a wise
jew
> > once said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". go ahead...
>
> What you're missing in all this is that it's not about Canada's treatments
of
> natives, nor is it about how America treats blacks, or how Hollywood
treats
> women (?).
>
>
Francois Hardy
dissertation.
In the following paragraph, you seem to forget that palestinians have been
pushed away from their land years after years, for decades, by israeli
expanding settling. The quiet but steady colonisation of israelis doesn't
appear like terrorism, but it does eventually pile-up to a general
frustration that will end-up as terrorism from the most extreme
individuals. And when a population has nothing to lose, well they will
support the ones that fight the long time "quiet" enemy. Don't forget the
fear of being the next family or village to be evicted from your house and
land. It is true that palestinian extremists are, somehow, stopping any
peace progress. Colonisation does the same.
> The U.N. has a position, which Isreal would agree to live with, if its
> civilian population was not constantly in jeopardy of losing lives, limbs
> and living in fear of that kind of action. The USA has a position, which
> is close to the position of the UN. The palistinians also have a position,
> and that is also one of peace.
>
> But a few extremists will not abandon the goal of the destruction of
> Isreal, and keep derailing and sabotaging any real efforts to establish a
> viable peace in the region.
In the next paragraph, you talk about the close relationship between Islam
and political leaders. Don't you forget that Israel is a jewish state
which governement has always been in very close relationships with
religious powers through all of its history. Again, colonisation is only
done in the favor of jewish israelis. And don't confuse Islam religion
with skrewed political leaders that pretend they are acting and speaking in
the way Islam is asking them to as you do in the last sentence of the
following paragraph. It is very pretentious, misleading, and false.
> Islam is a nation. Its a religious nation. There is no seperation of
> religion and state. Most often religious leaders are political leaders.
> Now we non-Americans know that America is exploitive economically. Why
> they buy billions and billions of dollars worth of oil from the middle
> east each year. And that is after having their assests seized and their
> companies kicked out of the oil production game. The price of oil is fixed
> by OPEC, and that too is exploitation. But worse yet, very few countries
> distribute that vast wealth among the population, and that is exploitation
> of your own population. But I suppose that is the way of Islam.
Francois Hardy
Mr Ed
wideiris wrote:
> > Try not to evade the subject at hand?
> >
> > The subject was Iraq. The references were supplied. Apparently you have no
> > interest and prefer to just spout off.
>
> thanks for finally showing me that you're unable to see the bigger picture.
> you may post in reply, but i won't be back to follow the thread. i'm
> through. although you seem educated, i don't think we can walk down this
> road any further due to a few of your limited abilities, and your
> progressive and escalating use of insults as an attempted form at feeling
> comfortably superior. good luck in your life.
Sorry to see you tuck your tail between your legs and slink off. But it is
abundantly clear that you have no basis to defend your own crumbling
position(s).
Bottom line? You refused to consider the very sort of unbiased references that
you would demand from others because those references don't fit into your own
'bigger picture', iow your 'personal world view'.
What you have shown is that your arguments are not based upon fact, but upon
bias.
Give 'em a sugar cube Wylbur, he said he's not coming back. Let's wave goodbye.