Behind the bombing attacks in Spain...
palmer.william
Al Kaida, or one if its affiliates, at least, is
behind the bombing attack in Spain, though
it is too early to state this as a fact.
America should do all it can to help the
grieving Spanish people. After all, Spain
was one of the few countries to get off
the sidelines and take an active role
in overthrowing Saddam in Iraq. In
other words, the Spanish had the
courage to stand up, while other
countries sat on the sidelines and
twiddled their thumbs.
It is very likely that the vile cowards who
set off those bombs had concluded that
Spain must be punished and intimidated.
It is said that about ninety percent of the
the Spanish people stand firm with the
U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true.
Even so, some people are asking why
Al kaida, if indeed they were involved,
picked Spain rather than other countries
which were allied with the U. S. in Iraq.
The answer may lie in Spain's history.
After all, their own country was once
largely controlled by fanatical Moslems.
Thanks to the great Spanish hero, El
Cid and other extremely brave soldiers,
the Spanish eventually won back
their freedom. That's why the Spanish
helped in Iraq: They had to live under
these animals, and they know what
sort of mentality they are up against.
But those who had plundered the wealth
of Spain for so long never forgave the
Spanish for winning their freedom, and
have long vowed revenge.
Of course, if Al Kaida did indeed set
off the bombs, the primary cause would
be Spain's contribution to the war effort
there. Yet, the secondary cause, and
the reason Spain and not some other
country was victimized by this atrocity,
might likely be a centuries' old
resentment.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
John Gilmer
"neoholistic" <ekq...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:c31k82$226uel$2...@ID-205152.news.uni-berlin.de...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> ON THE CONTRARY: 90% of the spanish people stood - and continue standing -
firm AGAINST the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And that is the thanks they get.
The solution is for individual Spainards to seek out individual muslims and
KILL THEM.
JimC
"neoholistic" <ekq...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:c31k82$226uel$2...@ID-205152.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> palmer.william wrote:
>
> > It is said that about ninety percent of the
> > the Spanish people stand firm with the
> > U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true.
Puedes leer espanol?
>
> ON THE CONTRARY: 90% of the spanish people stood - and continue standing -
firm AGAINST the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> You're either misinformed or a liar.
I have been following two of Madrid's dailies, El Pais ("The Nation") and El
Mundo ("The World") the past several days. (Links to twelve Madrid newspapers
will be found at
http://www.allyoucanread.com/newspapers.asp?id=P872. The number is not a
mistake. Seven of these cover general news. The others are specialty journals
alternative newspapers and one is the government's mouthpiece. Madrid is a
newspaper town and madrillenos are known in Europe for being informed about
the different sides of an issue.)
The fraction of the populace favoring Spain's participation in the Iraq war
before 11-M ("March 11", as it is being called in the Spanish press) was
claimed to have been 35-40%. That is, a large majority were opposed to
Spanish forces being in Iraq. I haven't seen recent figures for support of the
USA being in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
I don't know what the effect of March 11 will be. A large majority of
Europeans in general think that the Iraq invasion expanded al-Qaeda, but
I don't think any newspaper in Madrid is reporting the results of an opinion
poll taken in the past three days.
However, we won't have to wait for a referendum. It so happens that national
elections planned for today are taking place on schedule. Spaniards are voting
for members of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate. Both newspapers
are reporting that the number of people voting by 2 pm local time was up 5%
in comparison with the 2000 elections.
JimC
7:20 am, PST
Alan White
Alan
Alan
"JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message news:<nP_4c.38167$p_5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
Dr Zen
> At the moment, it is reported to be likely that
> Al Kaida, or one if its affiliates, at least, is
> behind the bombing attack in Spain, though
> it is too early to state this as a fact.
>
Why let that stop you?
> America should do all it can to help the
> grieving Spanish people. After all, Spain
> was one of the few countries to get off
> the sidelines and take an active role
> in overthrowing Saddam in Iraq. In
> other words, the Spanish had the
> courage to stand up, while other
> countries sat on the sidelines and
> twiddled their thumbs.
>
> It is very likely that the vile cowards who
> set off those bombs had concluded that
> Spain must be punished and intimidated.
>
You reckon?
> It is said that about ninety percent of the
> the Spanish people stand firm with the
> U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true.
It is said only by you, Bill.
>
> Even so, some people are asking why
> Al kaida, if indeed they were involved,
> picked Spain rather than other countries
> which were allied with the U. S. in Iraq.
Which people? Spain was an obvious and clear target. It's closer to
North Africa than Australia.
>
> The answer may lie in Spain's history.
Bullshit.
> After all, their own country was once
> largely controlled by fanatical Moslems.
No, it wasn't. It was controlled by fairly benevolent, tolerant
Moslems.
> Thanks to the great Spanish hero, El
> Cid and other extremely brave soldiers
Fanatical Christians, no?
> the Spanish eventually won back
> their freedom. That's why the Spanish
> helped in Iraq: They had to live under
> these animals, and they know what
> sort of mentality they are up against.
"these animals"?
You've gone a long way down, Bill.
Zen
Alan Hope
>You reckon?
>Bullshit.
>Fanatical Christians, no?
>"these animals"?
I thought Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the Moors out in 1492. Do you
think the Spanish have such long memories?
--
AH
Geoff Robinson
In Islam, the belief exists that once a territory goes Muslim it
should never go back. A little while ago, Osama was complaining about
the tragedy of the Muslims being kicked out of Spain. That was 1492.
And that's quite a long time to hold a grudge.
regards,
Geoff
JimC
"Geoff Robinson" <geo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:978b35e2.04031...@posting.google.com...
Yes, it is, but as Mel Gibson has shown, 500 years isn't a record.
Are Muslims crazy? We have people here including the president who
think they and cash register clerks with long lines and airline pilots are
going to spiral up into the blue on the day of rapture.
Roger R.
gracious here) misunderstandings wrapped in what might in some politically
extremist groups pass for a veneer of historicism.
"palmer.william" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:LYS4c.23795$aP6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> At the moment, it is reported to be likely that
> Al Kaida, or one if its affiliates, at least, is
> behind the bombing attack in Spain, though
> it is too early to state this as a fact.
There is also speculation that the ETA may have done it. Considering the
Spanish experience with the ETA, it is not surprising that many woud beleive
that, especially since the ETA has been losing support and some factions may
be getting desperate. I think that trying to decide which of the two did it
_may_ be illogically "analyzing" the possibilities. Ever hear of the logical
error of the excluded middle?
Both Al Qaida and the ETA need some kind of success, and the experience with
the earlier terrorists in Europe in the 70's, 80's and 90's was that even
when they had different goals, they often worked together in training and in
some operations. It woud fit the al Qaida MO to support the local terrorist
group to build a bigger effect. For the most part, only the ETA will really
pay any major price for the Spanish bombings.
>
> America should do all it can to help the
> grieving Spanish people.
^A truth. I wonder what this is doing here among all the other statements?
Or is this a game of "What statement here doesn't fit with all the rest?"
>After all, Spain
> was one of the few countries to get off
> the sidelines and take an active role
> in overthrowing Saddam in Iraq. In
> other words, the Spanish had the
> courage to stand up, while other
> countries sat on the sidelines and
> twiddled their thumbs.
^Here we have an interesting piece of propaganda. It is true that the
Spainish government supported the invasion of Iraq. Like most of Europe, the
Spanish people were overwhelmingly opposed to that support, and it was
really more likely a result of a Bush administration carrot-and-stick
approach with the Spanish government believing that there was not a
significant downside since Saddam had no real threat capability outside of
Iraq itself.
>
> It is very likely that the vile cowards who
> set off those bombs had concluded that
> Spain must be punished and intimidated.
^I think it more likely that they needed another really large terrorist act
to get themselves back into the world news, and that Madrid was an available
relatively soft target. Since the attack on Saddam did nothing to damage to
al Qaida, unlike the attack on the training bases in Afghanistan, what was
Spain to be punished for? The attack is as likely to be an effort by ETA to
show that it has not disappeared as it is by al Qaida to mobilize street
Arab opinion against the West.
>
> It is said that about ninety percent of the
> the Spanish people stand firm with the
> U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true.
^It is no doubt true that YOU _made_ that unsupported statement. The
statement itself is manifestly false.
>
> Even so, some people are asking why
> Al kaida, if indeed they were involved,
> picked Spain rather than other countries
> which were allied with the U. S. in Iraq.
^"Some people" will be ignoring the fact that the railway in Madrid was a
soft target available right before a national election and approximately a
year after the invasion of Iraq. It was more likely that it was a
combination of the available soft target, some local support by a faction of
the ETA that is feeling quite desperate, and an effort to sway street Arab
opinion by attempting to use the American success in easily removing Saddam
as an excuse. [The initial invasion clearly rankles many in the mideast. The
postwar chaos marginally run by the Bush incompetents does not make up for
the insult to many of them.]
>
> The answer may lie in Spain's history.
^But it really is very unlikely.
> After all, their own country was once
> largely controlled by fanatical Moslems.
> Thanks to the great Spanish hero, El
> Cid and other extremely brave soldiers,
> the Spanish eventually won back
> their freedom. That's why the Spanish
> helped in Iraq: They had to live under
> these animals, and they know what
> sort of mentality they are up against.
^Anyone familiar with the history of the reconquest will fail to recognize
the characterizations you are making. The Spaniard soldiers who kicked the
Muslims and the Jews out of Spain were in fact religious extremists
attempting to build a nation on Christianity, much like the al Qaida today
would like to build a world on Islam. Besides, history from 500 years ago is
no more important in Western nations today than it was in Yougoslavia and
the Balkans. The only real connection is the fodder such bad history
provides to propagandists like yourself and Milosevic today.
>
> But those who had plundered the wealth
> of Spain for so long never forgave the
> Spanish for winning their freedom, and
> have long vowed revenge.
^Can you provide the source comic book from which you obtained this little
nugget?
Charles I/V and Philip II with the help of the Popes on occasion did a lot
more to plunder Spain than did the earlier Muslim overlords. Between the
Inquisition, kicking out the Jews, and the ethnic cleasing practices of the
Spanish in the 16th Century, Spain is really only now beginning to recover
from what the Spanish leaders did to the nation.
>
> Of course, if Al Kaida did indeed set
> off the bombs, the primary cause would
> be Spain's contribution to the war effort
> there.
^The word "there" is an unresolved reference to what is apparently nothing
you have said previously. [Poor English.] It also assumes facts clearly not
in evidence regarding (a.) whether al Qaida did really set off the bombs,
and if it did, (b.) what _actually_ motivated them as opposed to the fog of
propaganda being put out by those who consider the Iraq war necessary and by
those who consider those in the Bush administration to be irrational
adventurers using tools they don't understand in a large, scary world that
frightens them severely.
I think a better view of the motivation of the perpetrators (if they were al
Qaida) would be provided by Organization Theory. Organization Theory woud
suggest that at the top, al Qaida has a few leaders who provide the
rationale for the organization both the recruit support and followers, and
attempt to use that organization to achieve their (in my opinion) Messaniac
goals for Islam.
But below top leadership is a large layer of middle management. Middle
management is responsible for seeing that the organization continues to do
what it has done most successfully in the past. The motivation of most
middle managers is to keep the processes of the organization functioning,
not to concern themselves with what those processes succeed or fail to do
outside the organization. Relations with the world outside the organization
are the responsibility of top management, and time spent on such concerns is
time taken away from ensuring the functioning of the organization itself.
Management in general has three methods of control available to ensure that
those further down the chain in the organization do those things that the
leaders want done. They can (a.) provide resources for approved operations
and evaluate the outcomes of such activities, rewarding those which are what
they want with further resources, or (b.) they can observe the operations of
the subordinates, using a model that if behavior A is expected to lead to
outcome X, then we want you doing more of behavior A and less of B, or (c.)
they can bring people into groups and work with them over time, until they
feel they understand what the people brought into the groups will do in a
given situation, then after an extended period of such socialization, they
can send those people out to ues their own judgement.
Method (b.) requires some form of protected sanctuary for training, such as
was previously provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is also the method
of control most open to disruption by the opposition. So al Qaida rather
clearly uses mostly the first and third at this time, with emphasis on the
method of socialization. The resutl is a lot of terrorists out there who
have been trained and socialized to conduct terror. It is what they are very
good at, and it is what they do.
It is also much easier to train people to perform a set of actions (like
acts of terror) than it is to teach them enough about society in general to
understand what the long-term results of such actions are likely to be. The
result is that most terrorists will focus on what potential targets are
available and what tools can be used to get them. The fact that a target is
likely to be highly publicized will be a lot more important than its'
long-term effects. As in most decisions, those results that can be easily
documented (publicity potential) are a lot more likely to be chosen than
those which depend a lot of subjective judgement and experience.
The result is that, applying those ideas in the Madrid bombing situation,
someone saw a chance to get a lot of publicity, and found that they could do
so with the resources at hand. [Whether those resources included the ETA has
not yet been determined - but I'll bet they did. A joint operation fits the
al Qaida MO and the timing is such that factions of the ETA who feel they
are losing were very likely easily motivated to use resources provided by al
Qaida.]
Tying the action to the Spanish government support of the invasion of Iraq
is simply the propaganda arm attempting to use an already planned operation
for its effect on the Arab street opinion. It is unlikely that anything the
Spanish government did in Iraq had anything at all to do with motivating the
attacks in Madrid, any more than the attacks on the US Embasseys in East
Africa had anything to do with what the Kenyan government had done.
>Yet, the secondary cause, and
> the reason Spain and not some other
> country was victimized by this atrocity,
> might likely be a centuries' old
> resentment.
^Bull crap. Any so-called "centuries' old resentment." is an effort by
currently living politicians to convince more people to become their
supporters. Otherwise all of Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Europe
would currently be blaming Mongolia for the depredations of the Huns and of
Genghis Kahn. History, rewritten history, and their Running Dog, political
propaganda, are the tools used today by one faction of today's politicians
against another faction. That is why Communist countries and the Bush
administration work so hard to rewrite history (or in the case of the Bush
administration, simply try to prevent the facts from being collected and
analyzed. Or remove them from reports, as they did to the Global Warming
parts of the EPA report. )
To believe otherwise is to ignore cause-and-effect.
Anytime someone mentions a "centuries' old resentment." it is time to grab
your wallet and lock up your women, because some political propagandist
wants to you take an illogical action that is most likely against your best
interest.
palmer.william
By all accounts, they have been chafing
about losing Spain for hundreds of
years. Natually, this common knowledge
does not square with Dr. Zen's politically
correct "beliefs-n-blatherings," so he made
a fool out of himself again and no doubt will
resent your confusing him with facts.
Also, despite Zen's silly remarks in favor
of Moorish rule of Spain--well, if it is YOUR
country, Zen, I doubt if you would think a rule
by benevolent (to the extent they were even
that) despots was so wonderful. Come
to think of it, YOU might, but most people
would likely not.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
>
> regards,
> Geoff
palmer.william
"Roger R." <jayray2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v_95c.9625$Q%2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> This message is a really weird combination of propaganda, and (let's be
> gracious here) misunderstandings wrapped in what might in some politically
> extremist groups pass for a veneer of historicism.
Whee...
>
> "palmer.william" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:LYS4c.23795$aP6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > At the moment, it is reported to be likely that
> > Al Kaida, or one if its affiliates, at least, is
> > behind the bombing attack in Spain, though
> > it is too early to state this as a fact.
>
> There is also speculation that the ETA may have done it. Considering the
> Spanish experience with the ETA, it is not surprising that many woud
beleive
> that, especially since the ETA has been losing support and some factions
may
> be getting desperate. I think that trying to decide which of the two did
it
> _may_ be illogically "analyzing" the possibilities. Ever hear of the
logical
> error of the excluded middle?
Since I did not know, I was basing my post on
hypothesis. I was very up front about that,
and I hope you are not suggesting that it is
out of bounds to speculate in a Usenet
posting. Further, I argue that many of points
were valid--they simply would not be so relevant
if it turns out the Basque fanatics or someone
else did the bombing, which I still doubt.
>
> Both Al Qaida and the ETA need some kind of success, and the experience
with
> the earlier terrorists in Europe in the 70's, 80's and 90's was that even
> when they had different goals, they often worked together in training and
in
> some operations. It woud fit the al Qaida MO to support the local
terrorist
> group to build a bigger effect. For the most part, only the ETA will
really
> pay any major price for the Spanish bombings.
>
> >
> > America should do all it can to help the
> > grieving Spanish people.
>
> ^A truth. I wonder what this is doing here among all the other statements?
> Or is this a game of "What statement here doesn't fit with all the rest?"
>
> >After all, Spain
> > was one of the few countries to get off
> > the sidelines and take an active role
> > in overthrowing Saddam in Iraq. In
> > other words, the Spanish had the
> > courage to stand up, while other
> > countries sat on the sidelines and
> > twiddled their thumbs.
>
> ^Here we have an interesting piece of propaganda. It is true that the
> Spainish government supported the invasion of Iraq.
Well, I may have been wrong regarding what I
said about ninety percent of the Spanish people
supporting the war. As a result of today's election
in Spain, it became obvious to me that leftest
propagandists retain more influence in Spain
than I previously believed.
Like most of Europe, the
> Spanish people were overwhelmingly opposed to that support, and it was
> really more likely a result of a Bush administration carrot-and-stick
> approach with the Spanish government believing that there was not a
> significant downside since Saddam had no real threat capability outside of
> Iraq itself.
I just don't believe that. Are you suggesting that
the leaders of Spain didn't watch 9-11 on television?
They knew what they were up against, and they
were wise enough to realize that the Western
world is under attack. Further, they had the
political courage to act upon that knowledge.
>
> >
> > It is very likely that the vile cowards who
> > set off those bombs had concluded that
> > Spain must be punished and intimidated.
>
> ^I think it more likely that they needed another really large terrorist
act
> to get themselves back into the world news, and that Madrid was an
available
> relatively soft target. Since the attack on Saddam did nothing to damage
to
> al Qaida, unlike the attack on the training bases in Afghanistan, what was
> Spain to be punished for?
Silly question. They were being punished for
standing shoulder to shoulder with the U. S.
and other allies in Iraq. Your assertion is
based on something I dispute: that our
war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq
has failed. For all you know, where it not
for those wars, many other atrocities might
already have taken place in the U. S., Spain,
and elsewhere. Further, I DOUBT that these
Al Qaeda fanatics will lay off Spain as a
result of the election. They will simply
conclude Spain is cowed and will start
making more blackmail demands when
it suits their purposes to do so, such as
insisting Spain release imprisoned
Al Queada members, etc. You can't
appease people like this.
[This is getting a bit long, so if there is something
I want to take issue with in the rest of your post,
I will do a "Part 2" followup.]
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
Roger R.
No, I wouldn't. But attempting to be logical by presenting only two extreme
positions becomes a waste of effort. This is especially true when the most
likely postion in the middle that was excluded is also the major apparent
method of conducting attacks that has been demonstrated by al Quada since
9/11.
>Further, I argue that many of points
> were valid--they simply would not be so relevant
> if it turns out the Basque fanatics or someone
> else did the bombing, which I still doubt.
Obviously I must have overlooked those valid points.
Obviously. Unfortunately, your belief is a matter of faith, rather than
something besed on any availabe evidence.
>Are you suggesting that
> the leaders of Spain didn't watch 9-11 on television?
You mean when the 19 members ( nationals of Saudi Arabia) from a clearly
identified terrorist group conducted a terrorist attack on the US in order
to force the US troops to get out of Saudi Arabia? An attack staged largely
from Germany and using people trained in Afghanistan? When Saddam was
clearly not on any kind of good terms with al Quada and also vewry clearly
provided no support at all for the attack? That 9/11?
The nations to which there was a clear connection were Germany, Afghanistan,
Saudi Arabia, and to a certain extent Pakistan. Yemen and Sudan might even
be dragged in, but that is unlikely. So, based on this, our most illustrious
son of a President decided to attack (ta daahhh!) Iraq!!!!
> They knew what they were up against, and they
> were wise enough to realize that the Western
> world is under attack.
Really? The _Western World_ is under attack? By whom? Name the nations.
Then tell me why al Quada conducted the attack, not any of those nations. Al
Quada may be out to get the Western World, but this clash of cultures crap
is just that. Crap. While there may be a number of cultural conflicts, the
fact is that they have few if any military aspects. And al Quada is really
no different from the anarchists, leftists, rightwing militias such as the
Sword and the Covenant, etc. that we face at all times. It is simply by an
accident of history that al Quada is more military, better trained and
better equipped than those others are, a fact for which we can thank the
Cold War, Charlie Wilson, and the CIA together with a number of Saudi money
men who were first assembled by our CIA and the government of Saudi Arabia.
Now, like Arrafat, bin Laden has apparently invested enough of the money he
had previously been given so that he is no longer dependent on any single or
small group of donors. Which makes him dangerous, but does not constitute an
attack on the Western World by the Islamic World or any other such mythical
entity.
>Further, they had the
> political courage to act upon that knowledge.
This is your inference of their motives, based on what you perceive their
actions to have been. There are many other more likely explanations, the
most likely being a major carrot and stick campaign by the Bush White House.
> >
> > >
> > > It is very likely that the vile cowards who
> > > set off those bombs had concluded that
> > > Spain must be punished and intimidated.
> >
> > ^I think it more likely that they needed another really large terrorist
> act
> > to get themselves back into the world news, and that Madrid was an
> available
> > relatively soft target. Since the attack on Saddam did nothing to damage
> to
> > al Qaida, unlike the attack on the training bases in Afghanistan, what
was
> > Spain to be punished for?
>
> Silly question. They were being punished for
> standing shoulder to shoulder with the U. S.
> and other allies in Iraq. Your assertion is
> based on something I dispute: that our
> war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq
> has failed.
Not my assertion at all. I think that our war on terrorism was hijacked and
misdirected into a stupid, pointless, and clearly now excessively expensive
war in Iraq which will provide few benefits and many future drawbacks. But
the Bush people wanted to go after Iraq on 9/12, and had to be almost
literally coerced into doing what was necessary in Afghanistan first.
The logic for including Iraq in the war on terrorism wasn't there before,
and is there now only because our attack destabilized Iraq so badly that the
terrorists found a new and veryb lucrative opportunity to fight against the
US. Not the West either, just the US.
I will say that Osama bin Laden and George Bush certainly have one thing in
common. They each decide who their main enemies are through other than
logical and rational methods, and act on that decision in spite of any facts
that would sway more rational men.
>For all you know, where it not
> for those wars, many other atrocities might
> already have taken place in the U. S., Spain,
> and elsewhere.
For all I know there is a Martian currenly using the Martian Lander as his
doorstop, also. The possibilities are endless. In fact, even if you include
only those possibilities for which some actual evidence exists, there are
still a great many possibilities. Do you have any evidence?
No, of course you don't.
>Further, I DOUBT that these
> Al Qaeda fanatics will lay off Spain as a
> result of the election. They will simply
> conclude Spain is cowed and will start
> making more blackmail demands when
> it suits their purposes to do so, such as
> insisting Spain release imprisoned
> Al Queada members, etc. You can't
> appease people like this.
The Spanish have a history of dealing with terrorists that we should look at
very carefully. They have more experience than we do, and I seriously doubt
that you will see any such 'caving in' to terrorist demands. That is even
assuming that there are any from verified terrorists.
>
> [This is getting a bit long, so if there is something
> I want to take issue with in the rest of your post,
> I will do a "Part 2" followup.]
>
>
> Mr. Palmer
> Room 314
>
>
Thank you for your post. While I disagree with almost everything you allege,
you have helped me to clarify my own thinking a great deal.
Of course, I find that much easier when dealing with disagreement than I do
with agreement. Agreement is a passive thing, and requires little or no
thought or logic.
Rick B.
Roger R.
Josh Marshal, and the first blog referred me to the Washington Post story on
the defeat of the Spanish Popular Party as a result of the bombings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57707-2004Mar14.html
Key points to be made from the story are:
"Aznar's [Popular Party] embrace of the Bush administration's policies in
Europe helped raise Spain's international profile, and his supporters said
that during his term in office Spain had again become a major player on the
world stage. But <u>anti-American sentiment runs deep, and Aznar's closeness
to Bush -- and his decision to send Spanish troops to Iraq -- became a
political liability. Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets to
protest the Iraq war, and polls last year showed 90 percent of the people
here opposed the war.</u> "
"In recent months, controversy over the Iraq war, deeply unpopular here, had
receded as a major issue, and more voters appeared focused on Spain's robust
economy. "
"But voters turned against the Popular Party after a series of coordinated
bomb blasts ripped through four crowded commuter trains at rush hour
Thursday morning, and government officials blamed the Basque separatist
group ETA while dismissing the possibility that the attacks might have been
carried out by Islamic extremists linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
terror network.<u> As mounting evidence pointed to al Qaeda, many Spaniards
criticized the government for withholding that information to avoid a public
backlash against the decision to deploy troops to Iraq. </u>"
"The Popular Party appeared to suffer from two separate but related fallouts
from Thursday's attacks. First was a sense that the government had withheld
information. Second, as the al Qaeda link became clearer, there was a sense
of outrage that Aznar's pro-American policies had put Spain on the firing
line of Islamic extremists seeking reprisals. "
Also interesting:
"The Popular Party was also hurt by the estimated 2 million young Spaniards
voting for the first time. "I voted for change," said one first-time voter,
Cristina Algema, a journalism student. "After the attacks, I had to
contribute to kicking out the PP." "
We Americans can hope for a similar reaction to the Bush administration in
November. Bush, however, might hope for a terrorist attack in the US three
days before the election. It would have the same effect that 9/11 had on the
2002 elections.
Whatever the case, however, this was another incident in the battle against
the criminals we today call terrorists. There is no evidence of any "War
against the West."
JimC
> I just switched over to read http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ the blog by
> Josh Marshal, and the first blog referred me to the Washington Post story on
> the defeat of the Spanish Popular Party as a result of the bombings.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57707-2004Mar14.html
>
> Key points to be made from the story are:
>
> "Aznar's [Popular Party] embrace of the Bush administration's policies in
> Europe helped raise Spain's international profile, and his supporters said
> that during his term in office Spain had again become a major player on the
> world stage. But <u>anti-American sentiment runs deep, and Aznar's closeness
> to Bush -- and his decision to send Spanish troops to Iraq -- became a
> political liability. Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets to
> protest the Iraq war, and polls last year showed 90 percent of the people
> here opposed the war.</u> "
In fact, exactly as predicted by the president's critics, he has not
confined and isolated al-Qaeda to a few caves in eastern
Afghanistan, but instead handed them the biggest recruiting
cause they could ever want. That cause is called Iraq. And without
their mortal enemy in the form of Saddam Hussein to keep them
out, the seeminly unintended consequence is that The Base --
in Arabic, "al-Qaeda" -- has a major Arab base from which to
operate.
George Bush has been a disaster since the days of vote-counting
in Florida, when the NYSE Industrials would go down on days that
developments favored him, and rise on news that favored the
popular winner.
It is irrelevant that Spaniards voted in a social democrat government. They
voted against the Iraq war. In Britain, a left-of-center government will
soon fall when Britons vote against the Iraq war. In the U.S., a right-wing
government will fall when Americans vote against the deception that
was used to snooker them into the Iraq war.
Jerry
>
<snip>
>
> It is irrelevant that Spaniards voted in a social democrat government.
They
> voted against the Iraq war. In Britain, a left-of-center government will
> soon fall when Britons vote against the Iraq war. In the U.S., a
right-wing
> government will fall when Americans vote against the deception that
> was used to snooker them into the Iraq war.
Which deception was that? That Saddam was a brutal dictator? That he
evaded his neighbors? That he used nerve gas against civilians? That he
massacred many of his own citizens after the first Gulf War? That he had WMD
(UN inspectors verified this some years ago) that were not accounted for?
That he was in complete violation of the UN resolutions requiring full
disclosure?
Saddam was problem. He has been fixed.The people if Iraq have a chance for
a better life. If we (Americans) are too damn stupid to see the bigger
picture, then we deserve some whiney ass replacement --- like the Euro
whine-asses.
While I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, I do belive he was right
on on this one.
Dr Zen
> "Geoff Robinson" <geo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:978b35e2.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > Why Spain? Good question.
> >
> > In Islam, the belief exists that once a territory goes Muslim it
> > should never go back. A little while ago, Osama was complaining about
> > the tragedy of the Muslims being kicked out of Spain. That was 1492.
> > And that's quite a long time to hold a grudge.
>
> By all accounts, they have been chafing
> about losing Spain for hundreds of
> years.
"They"? Is that the Grand Council of Moslem Fanatics? As usual, easy
racism is your hiding place.
> Natually, this common knowledge
> does not square with Dr. Zen's politically
> correct "beliefs-n-blatherings,"
I believe and blather that Moslems are far from homogenous. Osama has
not been unanimously elected spokesman for all Moslems.
> so he made
> a fool out of himself again and no doubt will
> resent your confusing him with facts.
No, I welcome Geoff's contribution. He has correctly noted that you
are not the only fuckwitted rascal who relies on twistings of history
to support his racist viewpoint.
> Also, despite Zen's silly remarks in favor
> of Moorish rule of Spain--well, if it is YOUR
> country, Zen, I doubt if you would think a rule
> by benevolent (to the extent they were even
> that) despots was so wonderful.
Sorry, which part of it would I be objecting to? That they were
despots? That has benefits and deficits for the general population.
That they were benevolent?
> Come
> to think of it, YOU might, but most people
> would likely not.
>
Most people just got on with their lives. Such is history.
Zen
Roger R.
"Jerry" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Co6dncppTo_...@comcast.com...
>
> "JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message
> news:gte5c.10227$RI5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > It is irrelevant that Spaniards voted in a social democrat government.
> They
> > voted against the Iraq war. In Britain, a left-of-center government
will
> > soon fall when Britons vote against the Iraq war. In the U.S., a
> right-wing
> > government will fall when Americans vote against the deception that
> > was used to snooker them into the Iraq war.
>
> Which deception was that? That Saddam was a brutal dictator?
>That he
> evaded his neighbors?
a threat to his neighbors, but not to the US.
>That he used nerve gas against civilians? That he
> massacred many of his own citizens after the first Gulf War?
Ancient history. If it was a threat to the US, we should have taken him out
THEN. Why was it important -TO US- in 2003?
>That he had WMD
> (UN inspectors verified this some years ago) that were not accounted for?
> That he was in complete violation of the UN resolutions requiring full
> disclosure?
A problem that the UN should possibly handle, but why should the US do it
against the opposition of the US?
Your list is a load of crap, shitted upon the people of the US and on our
military who are over there right now taking casualties for a war we did not
need.
The deception was that he was an urgent danger to the US. The particular
line was "We can't wait for the smoking gun if it will be a mushroom cloud."
But he had no nukes, he had no nuclear program, and he had no program that
would have permitted the delivery of nukes to the US. Saddam was in fact
less of a threat to the US than is our erstwhile ally, Pakistan.
>
> Saddam was problem.
But not to us. Not one worth 550 American deaths in a year, and over 3,000
severe casualties. Not one worth the the $85 billion supplemental budget -
in addition to the regularly appropriated money that has been used in Iraq.
Nor was Saddam the kind of problem that Bush's invasion has created for the
rest of the world as the terrorists rush into Iraq to fight, a place that
Saddam had successfully kept them out of.
>He has been fixed.
If Saddam has been "fixed", then I assume that your cure for a cold includes
cutting off the head of the victim. The cure has been much worse than the
disease ever was.
>The people if Iraq have a chance for
> a better life.
Possibly. That is still not established. In any case, it was not the problem
of the US until Bush decided to preemptively start his war. If there are any
problems Bush has solved by going into Iraq, it is quite clear that he has
created greater problems in their place.
>If we (Americans) are too damn stupid to see the bigger
> picture, then we deserve some whiney ass replacement --- like the Euro
> whine-asses.
It is clear that YOU do not see the larger picture. You want America to be
the world's policeman. Next, of course, youn will want us to go in and
straighten out Syria and Iran, probably while bombing North Korea deeper
into the Stone Age.
You clearly have no clue regarding any so-called "Big Picture." Or anything
else, for that matter.
>
> While I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, I do belive he was
right
> on on this one.
>
And your boy has suckered you once again. But then, I would guess that you
are a product of either a religious school education or of home-schooling.
You might check around to see if there are any good history comic books that
you can read. You clearly need something.
Dr Zen
> news:gte5c.10227$RI5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > It is irrelevant that Spaniards voted in a social democrat government.
> They
> > voted against the Iraq war. In Britain, a left-of-center government will
> > soon fall when Britons vote against the Iraq war. In the U.S., a
> right-wing
> > government will fall when Americans vote against the deception that
> > was used to snooker them into the Iraq war.
>
> Which deception was that? That Saddam was a brutal dictator? That he
> evaded his neighbors? That he used nerve gas against civilians? That he
> massacred many of his own citizens after the first Gulf War? That he had WMD
> (UN inspectors verified this some years ago) that were not accounted for?
> That he was in complete violation of the UN resolutions requiring full
> disclosure?
That we invaded his country for any of those reasons.
>
> Saddam was problem. He has been fixed.The people if Iraq have a chance for
> a better life.
Which they are grabbing by murdering one another.
> If we (Americans) are too damn stupid to see the bigger
> picture, then we deserve some whiney ass replacement --- like the Euro
> whine-asses.
>
Yeah, fuck it, man, we *should* just invade any old place that ticks
us off and bomb the shit out of the inhabitants. Tell you what,
there's a place I know where the government uses arbitrary detention,
torture and executions as means of terror. Let's bomb those fuckers.
You with us, or are you a whine-ass?
> While I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, I do belive he was right
> on on this one.
Which policy? You think his mates deserved enrichment? That Smersh
must be defeated? That pretzels should be outlawed?
Zen
Stephen Gercak
Government since it is obvious that you view this government as... how did
you put it???... one's who use arbitrary detention, torture, and executions
as terror. If that's how you view USA I sure as hell hope you are not an
American and if you are may a higher force help you because believe it or
not America has stood by that "terror" as a way of making our country a
better place to live and safer because of it for over 200 years and those of
us that actually live here understand what our forefathers had to endure
because of it. And that freedom of speech that you seem to love so much....
where the hell do you think that came from?????? Think before you talk.
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
Joshua P. Hill
<Port...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>let me ask you this Dr. Zen... you seem to not care for the American
>Government since it is obvious that you view this government as... how did
>you put it???... one's who use arbitrary detention, torture, and executions
>as terror. If that's how you view USA I sure as hell hope you are not an
>American and if you are may a higher force help you because believe it or
>not America has stood by that "terror" as a way of making our country a
>better place to live and safer because of it for over 200 years and those of
>us that actually live here understand what our forefathers had to endure
>because of it. And that freedom of speech that you seem to love so much....
>where the hell do you think that came from?????? Think before you talk.
(sigh)
Nice sentiment, but you're history.
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Alan
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"Stephen Gercak" <Port...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1vudnQk_1Z-...@adelphia.com...
Jerry
news:<Co6dncppTo_...@comcast.com>...
> > "JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message
> > news:gte5c.10227$RI5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > It is irrelevant that Spaniards voted in a social democrat government.
> > They
> > > voted against the Iraq war. In Britain, a left-of-center government
will
> > > soon fall when Britons vote against the Iraq war. In the U.S., a
> > right-wing
> > > government will fall when Americans vote against the deception that
> > > was used to snooker them into the Iraq war.
> >
> > Which deception was that? That Saddam was a brutal dictator? That he
> > evaded his neighbors? That he used nerve gas against civilians? That he
> > massacred many of his own citizens after the first Gulf War? That he had
WMD
> > (UN inspectors verified this some years ago) that were not accounted
for?
> > That he was in complete violation of the UN resolutions requiring full
> > disclosure?
>
>
> That we invaded his country for any of those reasons.
Good enough for me. I suspect you would have sat back while Hitler did his
thing. Ignore what was going on in the Balkans?
> >
> > Saddam was problem. He has been fixed.The people if Iraq have a chance
for
> > a better life.
>
> Which they are grabbing by murdering one another.
Bull shit! A bunch of wackos are stirring things up. Our press
mis-represents what is going on, and the simpletons of the world think he
sky is falling. Get a grip ---- no Zenny, not down there.
The point not to be lost on your observation, however, is that the wackos
and terrorists can influence the thought process (if you want to call it
that) of a lot of simple mined folk, like yourself. In fact, the whiners
and liberals may have it right ---- WE ARE ALL TO STUPID TO BE ALLOWED TO
RUN OUR OWN LIVES! Please don't let it be true.
>
> > If we (Americans) are too damn stupid to see the bigger
> > picture, then we deserve some whiney ass replacement --- like the Euro
> > whine-asses.
> >
>
> Yeah, fuck it, man, we *should* just invade any old place that ticks
> us off and bomb the shit out of the inhabitants.
No. Only the ones that are into behaviours like Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam.
And, obviously, focus on the bad guys and not the innocents --- unlike the
the guys you seem to support so much.
> <snip of some ignornat stuff>
>
> > While I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, I do belive he was
right
> > on on this one.
>
> Which policy? You think his mates deserved enrichment? That Smersh
> must be defeated? That pretzels should be outlawed?
I support the policy of premtive intervention. I accept that there are
those who would rather have waited for him to actually develop and deliver
some WMD, either personnaly, or through some third party before we did
anything.
At the risk of bring up old topics... The UN --- and most of the member
nations --- were 100% behind this policy as it related to Iraq up to the
point that they actually had to do something. If the UN had stayed together
like a nice bunch of girls, Saddam may well have backed down and the war may
not have happened. But NO. When the going got tuff, the whiners started
whining, and the cowards started running. Saddam felt he was going to get
over on the UN AGAIN. Fooled him eigh?
Maybe the next show down with a bad guy be averted because of Bushes policy,
inspite if the weakness of many of the UN members. Libya??
Ty
news:pdbb50hjt2q5812lg...@4ax.com...
> >That he was in complete violation of the UN resolutions requiring full
> >disclosure?
>
> Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions, what did your president
> do about that? Israel has non-disclosed WMD, what did your president do
> about that?
You really need to learn the difference between Security Council Resolutions
(which are binding under international law) and General Assembly
Resolutions, which are non-binding under international law. Israel is in
violation of the latter, not the former. Iraq violated the former.
Completely different situations.
--Ty
Stephen Gercak
argument so they have to attack something irrelevant.
"Alan" <alannc44@{nospam}ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:U5n5c.137012$jx3.8...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Alan
he was. We were after his butt from the word go and we only needed to find
rationalization. We were the ones demanding terms.
I still liked his idea he tossed out to Bush before the invasion: that of
publicly debating. I guess Bush didn't think much of that idea. Let's see
how he like's Kerry's idea of public debate. Can you say, "I'm too busy to
debate"?
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"Jerry" <no-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DL2dnfdSmI6...@comcast.com...
Alan
right over your head.
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"Stephen Gercak" <Port...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:ndOdnZXgtNn...@adelphia.com...
Stephen Gercak
yes his statements may be "factitious" but when you have friends and family
who had given the ultimate price for what we have I believe I have the right
to defend my country and how it works from worthless slugs that just sit
back and criticize the actions of a country and its people.news:Ino5c.103335$eL2.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/04
Joshua P. Hill
<Port...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>really???? How's that??? All I did was read between the lines and to some
>yes his statements may be "factitious" but when you have friends and family
>who had given the ultimate price for what we have I believe I have the right
>to defend my country and how it works from worthless slugs that just sit
>back and criticize the actions of a country and its people.
You do, you do, but if you don't pay minimal attention to your typing,
punctuation, and sentence structure, you're going to be flayed alive.
I mean, two lawyers argue case before a jury. Fundoc has blow-dried
hair, while Pundorc looks like he sleeps on the bowery. Fundoc's
client is a creep; Pundorc's client is a virtuous widow who's been
cheated out of her life's savings. Who's going to win? Right: the
widow is history.
Joshua P. Hill
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
>article <105c2qs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Oh yes, now I see, thanks for enlightening me; it makes a lot of
>difference from a moral point of view and has nothing to do with Israel
>having vetoing power in the Security Council through its proxy, the U.S.
Of course it makes a difference from a moral point of view: most of
the world's countries are tawdry dictatorships which have no moral
authority whatsoever. And, of course, they're under pressure from
terrorists. Even the United States, which has had more backbone than
most countries in that respect, admitted during the Clinton
Administration that it had modified its vote in the Security Council
out of fear of Palestinian terrorism.
Result: a whole lot of ludicrously lopsided votes in the General
Assembly.
Dave Lister
news:DL2dnfdSmI6...@comcast.com:
>
> Bull shit! A bunch of wackos are stirring things up. Our press
> mis-represents what is going on, and the simpletons of the world think
> he sky is falling. Get a grip ---- no Zenny, not down there.
Jerry with his X-ray vision just KNOWS that the press is misrepresenting
the news.
--
Un-elect Dubya in 2004
John Kerry for President
Dave Lister
news:105c2qs...@corp.supernews.com:
Only because the US vetos anything in the security council against Israel.
Jerry
complete coverage. They hype the bad news and over look the good news. Bad
news sells tv time/ newsprint inches... In Iraq as well as in anytown USA.
I hope this isn't coming as a shock to you.
"Dave Lister" <retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aaf24e24184af0a6...@news.teranews.com...
Roger R.
"neoholistic" <ekq...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:c35mov$24m1di$1...@ID-205152.news.uni-berlin.de...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> JimC wrote:
> > "neoholistic" <ekq...@terra.es> wrote in message
> > news:c31k82$226uel$2...@ID-205152.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> >>palmer.william wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is said that about ninety percent of the
> >>>the Spanish people stand firm with the
> >>>U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Soy español.
>
> >
> >
> >>ON THE CONTRARY: 90% of the spanish people stood - and continue
standing -
> >
> > firm AGAINST the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
> >
> >>You're either misinformed or a liar.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been following two of Madrid's dailies, El Pais ("The Nation")
and El
> > Mundo ("The World") the past several days. (Links to twelve Madrid
newspapers
> > will be found at
> > http://www.allyoucanread.com/newspapers.asp?id=P872. The number is not
a
> > mistake. Seven of these cover general news. The others are specialty
journals
> > alternative newspapers and one is the government's mouthpiece. Madrid
is a
> > newspaper town and madrillenos are known in Europe for being informed
about
> > the different sides of an issue.)
> >
> > The fraction of the populace favoring Spain's participation in the Iraq
war
> > before 11-M ("March 11", as it is being called in the Spanish press) was
> > claimed to have been 35-40%. That is, a large majority were opposed to
> > Spanish forces being in Iraq. I haven't seen recent figures for support
of the
> > USA being in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
> >
> > I don't know what the effect of March 11 will be. A large majority of
> > Europeans in general think that the Iraq invasion expanded al-Qaeda, but
> > I don't think any newspaper in Madrid is reporting the results of an
opinion
> > poll taken in the past three days.
> >
> > However, we won't have to wait for a referendum. It so happens that
national
> > elections planned for today are taking place on schedule. Spaniards are
voting
> > for members of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate. Both newspapers
> > are reporting that the number of people voting by 2 pm local time was up
5%
> > in comparison with the 2000 elections.
> >
> > JimC
> > 7:20 am, PST
> >
> >
>
> Te puedo asegurar que la cifra es correcta. El 90% de los españoles se
opuso en su día a la invasión de Irak. La cifra procede de varias encuestas
a nivel nacional, y fueron publicadas en los principales periódicos. Son de
dominio público en este país (no sólo soy español, sino que además resido en
España).
> Es posible que con el correr del tiempo el porcentaje de la población que
aprueba la invasón de Irak haya aumentado, como tú dices, hasta un 35-40%.
Yo, sin embargo, no me lo creo. La única cifra que conozco es el susodicho
90% - y no tengo ningún conocimiento de que haya disminuído.
>
Just for grins, this is the babelfish translation of the above statement.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr
I can assure to you that the number is correct. 90% of the Spaniards were
against in their day the invasion of Iraq. The number comes from several
surveys to national level, and were published in main newspapers. They are
of public dominion in this country (I am not only Spanish, but that in
addition I reside in Spain). It is possible that with running of the time
the percentage of the population that approves invasón of Iraq has
increased, as you say, until 35-40%. I, nevertheless, me do not create it.
The only number that I know is aforesaid 90% - and I do not have any
knowledge of which it has disminuído.
Which I knew in advance, of course. <grin>
It's hard to argue with the guy on the ground, isn't it? Especially when he
speaks the language and you haven't a clue. The WaPo also echoes this
statement.
I wouldn't expect any conservative to be aware of this, since conservatives
take a faith-based view of politics that ignores and even avoids or hides
facts that they find uncomfortable. On top of that, the American
conservative Republicans are so frightened of anyone who speaks Spanish that
they are trying to kick them out of the country (unless, of course, they
take care of the conservatives' children or clean his pool.) There are a few
exceptions, of course, similar to the uncle Toms Clarence Thomas or Walter
Williams who make a career of carrying the water for the conservatives even
though that damages most of their fellow members of the group. People like
Bush's attorney, Alberto Gonzales who helped him to kill several hundred
death row prisoners without any effective review of their cases. Though I
admit that I am unaware of any mainstream Hispanic Tio Tomases in the pundit
class.
Roger R.
<joh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sa6c50dl1lde4iv3n...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> article <105c2qs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> difference from a moral point of view and has nothing to do with Israel
> having vetoing power in the Security Council through its proxy, the U.S.
>
rabble. In the Security council it just happens to be us.
Dave Lister
news:nZednYADJOV...@comcast.com:
> Dave, it doesn't take X-ray vision to see that the media provides
> less than complete coverage. They hype the bad news and over look the
> good news. Bad news sells tv time/ newsprint inches... In Iraq as
> well as in anytown USA. I hope this isn't coming as a shock to you.
Fine, as a premise. Now where are you getting "complete coverage"?
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
Alan
este "palmer.william":
"....It is said that about ninety percent of the
the Spanish people stand firm with the
U. S. in Iraq, and no doubt that is true."
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"neoholistic" <ekq...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:c35n0b$24qrdp$1...@ID-205152.news.uni-berlin.de...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Alan White wrote:
> > Ni siquiera leer. Me gustaria saber donde obuvo esa cifra "90%"
> >
> > Alan
>
> No te pases de listo, 'Alan'. Ya he contestado a eso: esa cifra es de
dominio público, procede de encuestas a nivel nacional sobre el apoyo a la
invasión de Irak, y fue difundida por los principales medios de
comunicación. TODOS los españoles lo sabemos; pregunta a cualquiera de
nosotros. Tienes donde elegir, somos 40 millones.
>
> ¿No te gusta? Te jodes. Y te metes tus mentiras por el culo.
>
> --
> Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
>
> To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
>
Dr Zen
> let me ask you this Dr. Zen... you seem to not care for the American
> Government since it is obvious that you view this government as... how did
> you put it???... one's who use arbitrary detention, torture, and executions
> as terror.
Yep, that's what I said (in paraphrase, because obviously I didn't
"put it" with the writing ability of a six-year-old). You're going
great guns so far.
> If that's how you view USA I sure as hell hope you are not an
> American
So do I! It will come as a huge fucking surprise if I am.
>and if you are may a higher force help you because believe it or
> not America has stood by that "terror" as a way of making our country a
> better place to live and safer because of it for over 200 years
Not so safe for those who are arbitrarily detained, tortured or
executed, of course.
>and those of
> us that actually live here understand what our forefathers had to endure
> because of it.
What did your forefathers endure because of arbitrarily detaining,
torturing and executing people?
> And that freedom of speech that you seem to love so much....
> where the hell do you think that came from??????
From torturing people?
> Think before you talk.
Okay, I'll do you a deal. I'll think before I respond to any post of
yours that shows the least sign of intelligence whatsoever. Until then
I just don't need to bother, do I?
Zen
Ty
news:sa6c50dl1lde4iv3n...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> >You really need to learn the difference between Security Council
Resolutions
> >(which are binding under international law) and General Assembly
> >Resolutions, which are non-binding under international law. Israel is in
> >violation of the latter, not the former. Iraq violated the former.
> >
> >Completely different situations.
>
> Oh yes, now I see, thanks for enlightening me; it makes a lot of
> difference from a moral point of view
What does the UN have to do with morality? IMHO it's a corrupt, feckless,
dictator's debating club. It puts nations like Syria, Algeria, Libya, Saudi
Arabia, and Vietnam, on its Commission on Human Rights for cripes sake.
What *sane* person would define morality as doing what the UN General
Assembly says to do?
<shakes head and rolls eyes>
--Ty
Ty
> > You really need to learn the difference between Security Council
> > Resolutions (which are binding under international law) and General
> > Assembly Resolutions, which are non-binding under international law.
> > Israel is in violation of the latter, not the former. Iraq violated
> > the former.
>
> Only because the US vetos anything in the security council against Israel.
The fact remains that Iraq violated binding Security Council resolutions
while Israel has not. This places them in different position vis-a-vis
international law. The fact that Israel is a democracy while the assorted
Arab nations are comprised of comically inept crackpot lunocracies explains
why Israel is a prosperous Western nation and why the Arab world is a
cesspool of human misery bereft of the most basic rights that indulgent
Western lefties take for granted.
Please at least learn a little about international law before launching on
yet another tiresome, hackneyed, cliche-ridden anti-Israel rant.
Pretty please?
--Ty
Dr Zen
It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
> I suspect you would have sat back while Hitler did his
> thing.
I claim a Godwin and I've only just met this cunt!
>Ignore what was going on in the Balkans?
>
What *was* going on in the Balkans?
When you've finished with that one, do you mind reminding me what the
US did in the cases of Rwanda, Burundi or the Congo?
> > >
> > > Saddam was problem. He has been fixed.The people if Iraq have a chance
> for
> > > a better life.
> >
> > Which they are grabbing by murdering one another.
>
> Bull shit!
There is no unrest?
> A bunch of wackos are stirring things up.
Oh right! Not quite how I'd characterise the US military, but fair
shout.
> Our press
> mis-represents what is going on
Does it? How?
> and the simpletons of the world think he
> sky is falling.
Who said the sky was falling? Only you.
Some people have definitely found a better life since the allies
arrived -- profiteers, prostitutes, the criminal gangs roaming
Baghdad, Al Qaeda, Dick Cheney's mates in the construction and oil
business -- but improvement has been slow in coming for the masses.
> Get a grip ---- no Zenny, not down there.
>
> The point not to be lost on your observation, however, is that the wackos
> and terrorists can influence the thought process (if you want to call it
> that) of a lot of simple mined folk, like yourself.
I love it when the fuckhead who is calling me names can't even spell
them. It creates an impression, you know.
> In fact, the whiners
> and liberals may have it right ---- WE ARE ALL TO STUPID TO BE ALLOWED TO
> RUN OUR OWN LIVES! Please don't let it be true.
>
Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
privatised everything in sight.
> > > If we (Americans) are too damn stupid to see the bigger
> > > picture, then we deserve some whiney ass replacement --- like the Euro
> > > whine-asses.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, fuck it, man, we *should* just invade any old place that ticks
> > us off and bomb the shit out of the inhabitants.
>
> No. Only the ones that are into behaviours like Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam.
I hesitate to point this out but not only did you not bomb Pol Pot but
you supported him and his regime. Ditto Saddam when he was only
gassing up Kurds. Let's not get into boring lists of the homocidal --
nay genocidal -- maniacs your government has supported and still
supports, and the atrocities it has ignored, and yes, still ignores.
The idea that the USA intervened in Iraq on humanitarian grounds is
completely laughable. It was not the stated intention at the time and
has only even been mooted as a reason since the reasons used at the
time have been shown to be ill-founded at best.
> And, obviously, focus on the bad guys and not the innocents --- unlike the
> the guys you seem to support so much.
>
What guys do I seem to support so much?
> > <snip of some ignornat stuff>
LOFL!
> >
> > > While I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, I do belive he was
> right
> > > on on this one.
> >
> > Which policy? You think his mates deserved enrichment? That Smersh
> > must be defeated? That pretzels should be outlawed?
>
> I support the policy of premtive intervention.
What on earth do you think the USA was preempting?
> I accept that there are
> those who would rather have waited for him to actually develop and deliver
> some WMD, either personnaly, or through some third party before we did
> anything.
Well, dude, in a hundred years, President Bongo of Never Never Land
just *might* develop nukes. Think we should do him just in case?
> At the risk of bring up old topics... The UN --- and most of the member
> nations --- were 100% behind this policy as it related to Iraq up to the
> point that they actually had to do something.
No, they were not. The UN specifically did not support "preemptive
action". Those with longer memories than yours will recall that the UN
voted *against* action and the war was prosecuted illegally.
> If the UN had stayed together
> like a nice bunch of girls, Saddam may well have backed down and the war may
> not have happened.
The UN *did* stay together. It was a handful of its members that
attacked Iraq without the backing of the rest, wholly illegally.
> But NO. When the going got tuff, the whiners started
> whining, and the cowards started running.
How very brave of us to carpet-bomb Iraqi troops! That took real
fighting spirit. And lookit, seems that the guys making the decisions
didn't actually do the fighting anyway.
> Saddam felt he was going to get
> over on the UN AGAIN. Fooled him eigh?
>
I doubt it.
> Maybe the next show down with a bad guy be averted because of Bushes policy,
> inspite if the weakness of many of the UN members. Libya??
No, dude. They're good guys now, remember.
Zen
Dr Zen
> Well, the response you gave makes no sense. Zen's factitious remarks went
> right over your head.
>
>
As will "factitious"! I hope you're meaning that they were contrived
rather than that I'm a robot!
Zen
Alan
I have to quit relying so much on spell checkers. Of course, I meant
facetious.
Alan
--
Windsurfing Club: http://www.ibscc.org
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
Ty
news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
> think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between making a
statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
However, I am happy that you lefties are suddenly *so* concerned about liars
in the White House...
--Ty
Joshua P. Hill
>Some people have definitely found a better life since the allies
>arrived -- profiteers, prostitutes, the criminal gangs roaming
>Baghdad, Al Qaeda, Dick Cheney's mates in the construction and oil
>business -- but improvement has been slow in coming for the masses.
What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
already.
>> Get a grip ---- no Zenny, not down there.
>>
>> The point not to be lost on your observation, however, is that the wackos
>> and terrorists can influence the thought process (if you want to call it
>> that) of a lot of simple mined folk, like yourself.
>
>I love it when the fuckhead who is calling me names can't even spell
>them. It creates an impression, you know.
>
>> In fact, the whiners
>> and liberals may have it right ---- WE ARE ALL TO STUPID TO BE ALLOWED TO
>> RUN OUR OWN LIVES! Please don't let it be true.
>>
>
>Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
>be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
>those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
>fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
>privatised everything in sight.
Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
that immediate elections are not possible. And, of course, the Iraqis
will be running their lives very shortly.
Not exactly the actions of an aspiring colonial power, but then,
calling the United States an aspiring colonial power is a bit like
calling an adult an aspiring child. We will do what we have so often
done, hand over power to a democracy, and watch helplessly as it (most
likely) devolves into a dictatorship.
>I hesitate to point this out but not only did you not bomb Pol Pot but
>you supported him and his regime.
In fact, the United States opposed Pol Pot's attempt to seize power
from Lon Nol. After he was in power, the US opposed the North
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia on the putative grounds that they were
interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Not
something I agreed with, any more than I agree with those who say we
shouldn't have overthrown Saddam, but I think it's fairly bogus to
imply that we were somehow behind the fellow.
>Well, dude, in a hundred years, President Bongo of Never Never Land
>just *might* develop nukes. Think we should do him just in case?
Yes. Look at Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. The evidence shows that
intelligence agencies have consistently underestimated the pace at
which these countries were developing nuclear weapons. And it will
take only one nuke, delivered to a terrorist by the likes of A. O.
Khan, to start something that I do not want to contemplate.
>> At the risk of bring up old topics... The UN --- and most of the member
>> nations --- were 100% behind this policy as it related to Iraq up to the
>> point that they actually had to do something.
>
>No, they were not. The UN specifically did not support "preemptive
>action". Those with longer memories than yours will recall that the UN
>voted *against* action and the war was prosecuted illegally.
The UN never voted against action. Rather, it passed a resolution that
promised action in the event Saddam refused to comply with the demands
of the Security Council, and then refused to take the next step.
>> If the UN had stayed together
>> like a nice bunch of girls, Saddam may well have backed down and the war may
>> not have happened.
>
>The UN *did* stay together. It was a handful of its members that
>attacked Iraq without the backing of the rest, wholly illegally.
Debateable. Some experts on international law hold that the existing
Security Council resolutions were sufficient. And countries intervene
all the time in other countries without the authorization of the
Security Council -- as witness the French decision to send troops into
Africa.
What is clear is that most on the Security Council probably would have
opposed a more explicit authorization, and that, it seems, had more to
do with the Bushies' botched and arrogant diplomacy ("we're going in
whether you agree or not, now agree") than with the facts of the
matter.
Joshua P. Hill
As opposed to whom, Dick Nixon?
Me fer the wide open spaces.
Ty
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:04:07 -0600, "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
> >"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
> >> think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
> >
> >Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between making
a
> >statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
> >
> >However, I am happy that you lefties are suddenly *so* concerned about
liars
> >in the White House...
>
> As opposed to whom, Dick Nixon?
Well, after 8 years of lefties ignoring Mr. Clinton's near-constant stream
of lies, it's somehow refreshing to see them suddenly *so* concerned about
liars in the White House. Kinda like their sudden fiscal conservatism and
their sudden opposition to unilateral (i.e. without French permission)
military action. Gee, I wonder where they all were when Clinton was
unilaterally (i.e. without French permission) using military force?
'tis a conundrum. <shrug>
--Ty
John Gilmer
> Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
>
Why? You have something against leaving a PERMANENT RECORD?
EMWTK
JimC
Si si, creo que yo estuviera de acuerdo. Mi cifra es de un articulo que
aperecio en El Pais el sabado pasado. Hay dos preguntas. Debe
Espana estar en Irak y piensa la gente espanola que los EEUU deben
estar in Irak? A los espanoles la primera pregunta es mas importante,
verdad?
Mika Perala
Too bad the widow did not live in a country where facts are more important.
:)
mika
Joshua P. Hill
Hey, OJ's innocent, I tell ya.
Joshua P. Hill
Of course, the same thing could be said of Republicans after Watergate
and Iran-Contra . . . not to mention "Read my lips, no more taxes."
Dave Lister
news:105e78v...@corp.supernews.com:
I have nothing against Israel, loon, but you seem to think "international
law" is etched in stone. It barely even qualifies as "law".
JimC
JimC
> ... un articulo que
> aperecio en El Pais
aparecio
Joshua P. Hill
<retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Un-elect Dubya in 2004
You mean unappoint, don't you?
winter
while in reply, where i find them,
i delete them.
rgrds,
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
> > think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
>
> Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between making a
> statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
Yes, I would. Do you truly think that Bush and the people round him
*believed* that there were WMDs in Iraq? Put your politics to one side
before answering. Do you believe that they turned a blind eye to
evidence to the contrary? Try not to simply spin me the republigoon
line.
I think they lied, pure and simple. I think they hoped they would turn
up *enough* to be able to claim that they hadn't lied, or in the worst
case, that the war would run smoothly enough for them to claim that it
simply is not an issue. I think they hoped that the bullshit they were
being fed by Chalabi and his crew would turn out to be even in the
smallest part true, even though they could see that it wasn't likely
to be.
They were more or less right on the second part. The first and third
didn't go to plan.
I think they lied because they claimed they had evidence of WMDs
rather than saying that they weren't sure, or that the extent of his
programmes was unclear but they were worried enough to want more
vigorous action, or any other thing that might have indicated anything
but that they were *certain* he posed a clear and present threat to
our forces and interests.
To think otherwise would suggest that your intelligence setup, armed
as it is with hundreds of informers, with satellites, with
communications intercepts on an astonishing scale, with enormous reach
and scale, got the situation catastrophically wrong. Are you
suggesting that?
> However, I am happy that you lefties are suddenly *so* concerned about liars
> in the White House...
I don't care whether politicians fuck their secretaries. You people
worry way too much about that kind of thing.
Zen
Joshua P. Hill
>"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<105e93l...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
>> > think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
>>
>> Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between making a
>> statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
>
>Yes, I would. Do you truly think that Bush and the people round him
>*believed* that there were WMDs in Iraq? Put your politics to one side
>before answering. Do you believe that they turned a blind eye to
>evidence to the contrary? Try not to simply spin me the republigoon
>line.
Two different questions, I think. Saddam's cat-and-mouse games with
the inspectors, his refusal to come clean over what had happened to
the WMD's, and, apparently, his own belief in fictitious weapons
programs all created the impression that Iraq did have such weapons.
Even Chirac and Putin believed that.
So I don't think Bush and Blair were lying. What the Bushies did do, I
gather, is begin with the assumption that the WMD's were present, and
overinterpret fragmentary evidence/possibly pressure intelligence
agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear.
>I think they lied, pure and simple. I think they hoped they would turn
>up *enough* to be able to claim that they hadn't lied, or in the worst
>case, that the war would run smoothly enough for them to claim that it
>simply is not an issue.
It seems to me that had they suspected the weapons weren't there, they
would merely have used another justification. No reason for the
embarrassment.
>I think they lied because they claimed they had evidence of WMDs
>rather than saying that they weren't sure, or that the extent of his
>programmes was unclear but they were worried enough to want more
>vigorous action, or any other thing that might have indicated anything
>but that they were *certain* he posed a clear and present threat to
>our forces and interests.
>
>To think otherwise would suggest that your intelligence setup, armed
>as it is with hundreds of informers, with satellites, with
>communications intercepts on an astonishing scale, with enormous reach
>and scale, got the situation catastrophically wrong. Are you
>suggesting that?
It often happens. Just look at North Korea, Iran, and Libya, not to
mention Pakistan.
Ty
> > The fact remains that Iraq violated binding Security Council
> > resolutions while Israel has not. This places them in different
> > position vis-a-vis international law. The fact that Israel is a
> > democracy while the assorted Arab nations are comprised of comically
> > inept crackpot lunocracies explains why Israel is a prosperous Western
> > nation and why the Arab world is a cesspool of human misery bereft of
> > the most basic rights that indulgent Western lefties take for granted.
> >
> > Please at least learn a little about international law before
> > launching on yet another tiresome, hackneyed, cliche-ridden
> > anti-Israel rant.
>
> I have nothing against Israel, loon...
Whatever. The point remains that you attempted to equate Israel and Iraq,
depite the fact that Israel has only ignored non-binding resolutions and
Iraq violated binding resolutions. The two situations are *not* the same, as
anyone who knows anything about international law and the UN would realize.
Of course, you do not appear to be in the class of people who know anything
about the UN or international law.
>..., but you seem to think "international
> law" is etched in stone. It barely even qualifies as "law".
*You* are the one who implied that Israel was behaving as illegally as Iraq.
As evidence, you pointed to Israel's noncompliance with UN General Assembly
resolutions.
Yet when faced with the *fact* that international law holds otherwise, you
now complain that international law isn't really "law".
<shrug>
What is your point?
--Ty
Ty
news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:<105e93l...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
> > > think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
> >
> > Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between
making a
> > statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
>
> Yes, I would.
Good.
> Do you truly think that Bush and the people round him
> *believed* that there were WMDs in Iraq?
Yes. As did such well known liars, frauds and warmongerers as John
Heinz-Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Hans Blix,
Ted Kennedy, Jacques Ch-Iraq, and Dominic DeVillepin (who is a man).
The debate was never whether he had WMDs -- everyone, including your side of
the fence -- assumed that he did. The debate was over whether we would
finally take him out or continue the ineffectual sanctions regime of the
last 10 years.
Your attempts to retroactively change the debate are most disengenuous.
Still, welcome to the fight. I'm so glad to see you lefties *finally* so
concerned about liars in the White House, however belatedly.
> I think they lied, pure and simple.
You know, I think that I'll join you in calling for the arrest (or at least
the impeachment) of those liars who led us to believe that there were such
weapons -- Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Joe Lieberman, Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hans Blix, Bob
Graham, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Jacques Chirac,
Mrs. Bill Clinton, William Cohen, John Edwards, Dick Gephart, Ted Kennedy,
Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Scott Ritter, John Rockefeller, and
Henry Waxman.
Of course if all of these liars are removed from office, it will leave the
Democratic Party (and the French, though there's not much difference)
leaderless. So which one of these lying lefties do you think should be the
first to be incarcerated -- or at least removed from public office?
***
"Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda
network... Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist
networks, ... there are still governments that could bring us great harm.
And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular
represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be
on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle
of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on
our terms." -- Al Gore
***
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein,
Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9,
1998
***
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From
a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos among others
***
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
***
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
***
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
***
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998
***
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
***
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003
***
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
***
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
***
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
***
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
***
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002
***
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
***
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
***
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
***
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
***
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
***
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
***
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
***
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
***
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
***
So please tell us again which of these liars that you think we should
imprison or impeach first...
> > However, I am happy that you lefties are suddenly *so* concerned about
liars
> > in the White House...
>
> I don't care whether politicians fuck their secretaries. You people
> worry way too much about that kind of thing.
Uh huh. Anyhow, glad to see that you suddenly hate liars in the White House.
Where were you when Bill Clinton "unilaterally" (i.e., without French
permission) attacked Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan? And when he dragged Old
Europe into Kosovo to stop the genocide there?
Or is it somehow okay when a Democrat does it?
--Ty
Roger R.
news:<1vudnQk_1Z-...@adelphia.com>...
> > let me ask you this Dr. Zen... you seem to not care for the American
> > Government since it is obvious that you view this government as... how
did
> > you put it???... one's who use arbitrary detention, torture, and
executions
> > as terror.
>
> Yep, that's what I said (in paraphrase, because obviously I didn't
> "put it" with the writing ability of a six-year-old). You're going
> great guns so far.
>
> > If that's how you view USA I sure as hell hope you are not an
> > American
>
> So do I! It will come as a huge fucking surprise if I am.
>
> >and if you are may a higher force help you because believe it or
> > not America has stood by that "terror" as a way of making our country a
> > better place to live and safer because of it for over 200 years
American right-wingers have also supported such behavior by the Generals of
Argentina and the right-wing in El Salvador, or by the Shah of Iran. It has
been self-defeating in all those countries, as it will be in the US. America
becomes a better and safer place to live when the rule of law is applied
rather than the arbitrary decisions of idiots like Bush and his minions. The
rule of law does not include sidelining the requirements of the US
Constitution.
America can better be defended from the criminal terrorists under the
Constithion than it can by going outside the rule of law. Those who attempt
to abrogate the requirements of the Constituition are a greater menace to
this nation than any other terrorists throughout the world.
>
> Not so safe for those who are arbitrarily detained, tortured or
> executed, of course.
>
> >and those of
> > us that actually live here understand what our forefathers had to endure
> > because of it.
>
> What did your forefathers endure because of arbitrarily detaining,
> torturing and executing people?
>
> > And that freedom of speech that you seem to love so much....
> > where the hell do you think that came from??????
>
> From torturing people?
>
> > Think before you talk.
>
> Okay, I'll do you a deal. I'll think before I respond to any post of
> yours that shows the least sign of intelligence whatsoever. Until then
> I just don't need to bother, do I?
>
> Zen
Many of us who _are_ Americans do not recognize the usurpers currently
holding the White House hostage at the true government of the US. Those who
are reactionary fools do not seem to realize or will not admit that a coup
de etate has occurred.
An unelected government run by blind, irrational and self-serving ideologues
is no better an idea in America than it was in the USSR, but that is what we
presently have. American patriots will remove them. Soon.
Dr Zen
> On 16 Mar 2004 12:25:00 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<105e93l...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> > It's good enough for you that we were deceived into invading Iraq? You
> >> > think that's the way our governments should conduct themselves.
> >>
> >> Surely you would agree that there is a profound difference between making a
> >> statement that turns out to be inaccurate and telling a lie?
> >
> >Yes, I would. Do you truly think that Bush and the people round him
> >*believed* that there were WMDs in Iraq? Put your politics to one side
> >before answering. Do you believe that they turned a blind eye to
> >evidence to the contrary? Try not to simply spin me the republigoon
> >line.
>
> Two different questions, I think. Saddam's cat-and-mouse games with
> the inspectors, his refusal to come clean over what had happened to
> the WMD's, and, apparently, his own belief in fictitious weapons
> programs all created the impression that Iraq did have such weapons.
> Even Chirac and Putin believed that.
>
None of these things amounted to a case for his having them. *You*
believed it, Josh, because *you* wanted to.
> So I don't think Bush and Blair were lying. What the Bushies did do, I
> gather, is begin with the assumption that the WMD's were present, and
> overinterpret fragmentary evidence/possibly pressure intelligence
> agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear.
>
Which is, I think, what I suggested.
We can split hairs over whether you think that's "lying" or not.
We know they lied over specifics -- these weapons' being here, those
there -- and we know that to some extent they lied over who their
sources were (they said "Iraqi military sources" when what they ought
to have said was "Chalabi's party members who claim to have spoken to
Iraqi military sources").
> >I think they lied, pure and simple. I think they hoped they would turn
> >up *enough* to be able to claim that they hadn't lied, or in the worst
> >case, that the war would run smoothly enough for them to claim that it
> >simply is not an issue.
>
> It seems to me that had they suspected the weapons weren't there, they
> would merely have used another justification.
What other justification? At least in the UK we refused to buy any
other.
It was *absolutely key* to Blair's gaining support for the war. He
couldn't win a vote in the House on any other count.
They certainly suspected the weapons weren't there. They're not
fucking stupid! They hoped the waters would be muddied enough that it
wouldn't matter.
> No reason for the
> embarrassment.
>
They were shipped to Syria. They only had programmes. We meant
Scuds...
You see?
> >I think they lied because they claimed they had evidence of WMDs
> >rather than saying that they weren't sure, or that the extent of his
> >programmes was unclear but they were worried enough to want more
> >vigorous action, or any other thing that might have indicated anything
> >but that they were *certain* he posed a clear and present threat to
> >our forces and interests.
> >
> >To think otherwise would suggest that your intelligence setup, armed
> >as it is with hundreds of informers, with satellites, with
> >communications intercepts on an astonishing scale, with enormous reach
> >and scale, got the situation catastrophically wrong. Are you
> >suggesting that?
>
> It often happens. Just look at North Korea, Iran, and Libya, not to
> mention Pakistan.
What do you think we got wrong in those cases? We knew exactly what
Libya had! North Korea is more difficult to penetrate. We're quite
sure what Iran has. We weren't surprised by Pakistan. We were fully
aware of Iraq's programmes. Our proxy destroyed its lead nuclear
facility. We knew it had chems -- we sold them to it! We knew what its
capabilities were like in detail. We weren't sure it had destroyed all
its tactical CBW, but these are not WMD in anyone's language anyway,
and we have a long history of being totally unconcerned about their
using them. I don't recall any clamour to remove Saddam after Halabja,
Josh, nor on account of gassing Iranian troops.
Zen
Dr Zen
> On 16 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >Some people have definitely found a better life since the allies
> >arrived -- profiteers, prostitutes, the criminal gangs roaming
> >Baghdad, Al Qaeda, Dick Cheney's mates in the construction and oil
> >business -- but improvement has been slow in coming for the masses.
>
> What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
> infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
> Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
> has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
> Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
> already.
>
Except of course for the dead ones. Still, maybe in your fat head the
only good Iraqi *is* a dead one.
> >> Get a grip ---- no Zenny, not down there.
> >>
> >> The point not to be lost on your observation, however, is that the wackos
> >> and terrorists can influence the thought process (if you want to call it
> >> that) of a lot of simple mined folk, like yourself.
> >
> >I love it when the fuckhead who is calling me names can't even spell
> >them. It creates an impression, you know.
> >
> >> In fact, the whiners
> >> and liberals may have it right ---- WE ARE ALL TO STUPID TO BE ALLOWED TO
> >> RUN OUR OWN LIVES! Please don't let it be true.
> >>
> >
> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
> >privatised everything in sight.
>
> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
> that immediate elections are not possible.
They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
that they had to move forward.
> And, of course, the Iraqis
> will be running their lives very shortly.
>
*Some* Iraqis.
> Not exactly the actions of an aspiring colonial power, but then,
> calling the United States an aspiring colonial power is a bit like
> calling an adult an aspiring child.
It has more sense than to do it hands on.
> We will do what we have so often
> done, hand over power to
a bullyboy, fund him to the hilt, and turn a blind eye so long as we
get our oil.
Zen
John Tibbs
"Roger R." <jayray2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DrQ5c.7826$wz5....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stephen Gercak" <Port...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:<1vudnQk_1Z-...@adelphia.com>...
> > > let me ask you this Dr. Zen... you seem to not care for the American
> > > Government since it is obvious that you view this government as... how
> did
> > > you put it???... one's who use arbitrary detention, torture, and
> executions
> > > as terror.
> >
> > Yep, that's what I said (in paraphrase, because obviously I didn't
> > "put it" with the writing ability of a six-year-old). You're going
> > great guns so far.
> >
> > > If that's how you view USA I sure as hell hope you are not an
> > > American
> >
> > So do I! It will come as a huge fucking surprise if I am.
> >
> > >and if you are may a higher force help you because believe it or
> > > not America has stood by that "terror" as a way of making our country
a
> > > better place to live and safer because of it for over 200 years
>
> American right-wingers have also supported such behavior by the Generals
of
or by the Shah of Iran. (translated: America's friendly leader in Iran but
Jimmy Carters enemy)
becomes a better and safer place to live when the rule of law is applied
> rather than the arbitrary decisions of idiots like Bush and his minions.
The
> rule of law does not include sidelining the requirements of the US
> Constitution.
You have the Bush administration confused with liberal judges appointed by
democrat presidents.
>
> America can better be defended from the criminal terrorists under the
> Constithion than it can by going outside the rule of law. Those who
attempt
> to abrogate the requirements of the Constituition are a greater menace to
> this nation than any other terrorists throughout the world.
Then get RID of the liberal judges and let Bush appoint some sensible ones!
>
(Garbage of the left is deleted in deference to decency.)
jt
Ty
news:g69h50dn9dj6skpen...@4ax.com...
> >What does the UN have to do with morality? IMHO it's a corrupt, feckless,
> >dictator's debating club. It puts nations like Syria, Algeria, Libya,
Saudi
> >Arabia, and Vietnam, on its Commission on Human Rights for cripes sake.
> >
> >What *sane* person would define morality as doing what the UN General
> >Assembly says to do?
> >
> ><shakes head and rolls eyes>
>
> However you dislike it, "morality" counts a lot in the eyes of public
> opinion and in the propaganda war. And technicalities aside about
> binding or non-binding resolutions, the whole world sees clearly that
> Israel has no respect for any other country, much less for the two
> (Shrub's and Poodle's ) it has in its pocket.
As opposed to the corrupt and brutal regimes that comprise the Arab world?
Puh-leez. Anyone who would prefer typical Arab lunocracies -- including the
comically corrupt murderous regime of Yasser Arafat -- is obviously basing
their opinion on something other than the facts.
As is anyone who imputes some kind of moral superiority to the UN...
--Ty
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<6i9e50p9sfrnceb86...@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>>
>> What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
>> infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
>> Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
>> has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
>> Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
>> already.
>Except of course for the dead ones. Still, maybe in your fat head the
>only good Iraqi *is* a dead one.
Far fewer than would have died under Saddam. Did you support the North
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia? I did, and it wasn't because I was
fond of the North Vietnamese.
>> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
>> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
>> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
>> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
>> >privatised everything in sight.
>>
>> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
>> that immediate elections are not possible.
>
>They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
>that they had to move forward.
Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
avoid an Islamist republic.
>> And, of course, the Iraqis
>> will be running their lives very shortly.
>*Some* Iraqis.
No worse than what they had before, and better than some Americans and
Brits.
>> Not exactly the actions of an aspiring colonial power, but then,
>> calling the United States an aspiring colonial power is a bit like
>> calling an adult an aspiring child.
>
>It has more sense than to do it hands on.
Then the US isn't a colonial power. You may not like what it is, but I
don't think it makes sense to use a term from starched-collars days.
>> We will do what we have so often
>> done, hand over power to
>
>a bullyboy, fund him to the hilt, and turn a blind eye so long as we
>get our oil.
If he has oil, he won't need our funding. Anyway, if we overthrow him
as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
flop: you'll blame us either way.
Ty
news:k2mh50tphfcqvv0h8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:09:17 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> >As opposed to the corrupt and brutal regimes that comprise the Arab
world?
>
> Not opposed to anything but as such.
Ah. So you condemn Israel for purported bad behavior, then ignore far worse
behavior among Israel's self-identified enemies? How fair minded of you.
> >Puh-leez. Anyone who would prefer typical Arab lunocracies -- including
the
> >comically corrupt murderous regime of Yasser Arafat --
>
> OK, you have a point, Sharon's regime certainly isn't comical. I leave
> it to others to ponder the "corrupt" and "murderous".
Well, the Arab lunocracies probably lose a great deal of their humorousness
when you have to live there...
> >is obviously basing
> >their opinion on something other than the facts.
> >As is anyone who imputes some kind of moral superiority to the UN...
>
> Notice the scare quotes. I agree that there is no morality in
> international politics. My point is only public perception and
> propaganda and Israel already lost that war.
And my point is that there was never a war to begin with. IMHO most of
Israel's critics, for a variety of less than admirable reasons, simply hate
Israel, no matter what. To hide their unreasonableness, they pretend to hold
Israel to a certain code of conduct and condemn Israel when that code is not
observed perfectly. The problem of course, is that they do not hold *anyone*
else -- especially the Arabs --- to anything like the same code.
Personally, I wish they would realize that they fool no one -- except maybe
themselves.
Such idiotic behavior leads to the absurdity of excusing Saddam's violation
of binding UN Security Council resolutions while criticizing Israel for
refusing to obey explicitely *non* binding General Assembly resolutions...
Or criticizing Sharon for "terrorism" while giving Arab terrorists a
handwave.
--Ty
Roger R.
"John Tibbs" <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_y06c.44775$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Ashcroft is not a Judge, nor is he a liberal. He is at best a fanatic
Christian Fascist, and that is the very best characterization of his attempt
to implement detentions that exclude any opportunity to find out what the
charges are, to meet with an attorney, to have a trial with a real judge, or
to have a trial in which the "evidence" is not withheld from the defendent.
When these cases are finally being brought to the courts where they belonged
in the first place, even your conservative judges are unwilling to allow the
Executive Departments to take actions that are actually the jurisdiction of
the courts.
If you think that enforcing the requirements of the Constitution is what
Liberal Activist Judges are doing, then you need to go polish your jackboots
and join your FreiKorps. [AshKroft, Bush and Cheney can tell you where to
go.]
> >
> > America can better be defended from the criminal terrorists under the
> > Constithion than it can by going outside the rule of law. Those who
> attempt
> > to abrogate the requirements of the Constituition are a greater menace
to
> > this nation than any other terrorists throughout the world.
>
> Then get RID of the liberal judges and let Bush appoint some sensible
ones!
> >
> (Garbage of the left is deleted in deference to decency.)
> jt
>
That which is considered "decency" by Fascists such as you is considered
criminal behavior by the civilized world.
God save us and the rest of the world from gutterslime like you - and like
your Justice who bends the law to match his prejudices, Scalia. He is the
Justice who prejudges the cases he is going to hear, thinks he is so far
above the law that he tells an anti-homosexual organization pushing a case
that he is likely to hear at the Supreme Court how he is going to decide in
their favor before the case even gets to him, and thinks he does not need to
recuse himself even when caught. But the canons of Judicial Ethics do not
apply to the Justices of the Supreme Court, so only his conscience is
involved in his behavior, and he has no conscience.
Any Supreme Court case decided 7 to 2 with Scalia and Thomas in the minority
is a case decided unanimously by the civilized Justices
You know, Putin wants to restrict or eliminate juries in the Russian trials
because the prosecutors haven't learned how to investigate and present a
difficult case that is strong enugh to get a conviction. Your conservative
heroes, Bush and Ashkroft, are doing Putin one better. They are simply
eliminating the courts themselves in those criminal cases they find
difficult so that they rename the defendents "terrorists'.
Bush and you are not making war on terrorism, You are making war on the
Constitution. You will not get away with it.
RB
>
Roger R.
predictably, so that those under the rule of law know what to expect. The
primary purpose of the rule of law is removing the decisions of
self-serving, arbitrary and unpredictable individuals from the decisions in
cases which are in conflict. The purpose of the law is first and foremost to
provide stability in the society. Attempts to resort to morality often
disrupt stability.
The idea that law is intended to legislate morality is of much less
importance than consistency in the rule of law. It is also probably
unattainable, unlike consistency. You will notice that in the UK the rules
of equity are considered only after those of the law.
The reason for this is that, unlike consistent published and enforced rules
of law, morality is not consistent. What is moral for the Israelis is
frequently not seen as moral by the Palestinians, or Hamas, or Islamic
Jihad. The reverse is also true. But behavioral rules of law, consistently
applied and reviewed by impartial courts, can be made consistent.
The problem with the UN is that it has not developed a system of the
consistent and unarbitrary application of laws to cases, and it probably
won't until it develops a judicial system. That will mean some sacrifice of
sovereignty by each of the member nations, so don't count on it happening
anytime soon.
So,no, the UN is nor morally superior. But since it is made up of sovereign
nations rather than the representatives of individual people, it really is
not even a deliberative body. Then, neither were the House of Lords or the
Parliament for many centuries. They did not become so (to the extent that
they are even yet) until after the UK became a nation instead of a mixture
of competing interests on an island. But then, the Senate and the House of
Representatives are not especially moral bodies, either. So why would you
ever expect the UN, only a little over 50 years old, to be moral? Or even
consistent?
RB
Roger R.
<to...@princenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k2mh50tphfcqvv0h8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:09:17 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
>
>
> >> However you dislike it, "morality" counts a lot in the eyes of public
> >> opinion and in the propaganda war. And technicalities aside about
> >> binding or non-binding resolutions, the whole world sees clearly that
> >> Israel has no respect for any other country, much less for the two
> >> (Shrub's and Poodle's ) it has in its pocket.
> >
> >As opposed to the corrupt and brutal regimes that comprise the Arab
world?
>
>
the
> >comically corrupt murderous regime of Yasser Arafat --
>
> it to others to ponder the "corrupt" and "murderous".
For comical, not to suggest "corrupt or "murderous", I suggest that you read
about Sharon's behavior in the October 73 War. [The Eve of Destruction: The
Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War by Howard Blum - Excellent book!]
The man was and is a self-aggrandizing, self-centered, ignorant menace to
all around him. That the Palestinians could have so frightened the Israeli
voting population enough to put him back into a position of power is a
testament to the depths of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and probably
reflects most on the utter incompetence of Arafat.
>
> >is obviously basing
> >their opinion on something other than the facts.
> >As is anyone who imputes some kind of moral superiority to the UN...
>
> Notice the scare quotes. I agree that there is no morality in
> international politics. My point is only public perception and
> propaganda and Israel already lost that war.
> >--Ty
> >
>
Dr Zen
> On 17 Mar 2004 09:30:40 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<6i9e50p9sfrnceb86...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 16 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
> >>
> >> What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
> >> infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
> >> Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
> >> has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
> >> Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
> >> already.
>
> >Except of course for the dead ones. Still, maybe in your fat head the
> >only good Iraqi *is* a dead one.
>
> Far fewer than would have died under Saddam.
That cannot be known, Josh.
> Did you support the North
> Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?
Yes. With caveats, of course. It's more that I think all in all it was
a good thing.
> I did, and it wasn't because I was
> fond of the North Vietnamese.
>
It's a pure fiction that the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people
from suffering.
Will it turn out to be a good thing all in all? There are far more
issues than whether more or fewer Iraqis will die in the next few
years.
> >> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
> >> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
> >> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
> >> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
> >> >privatised everything in sight.
> >>
> >> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
> >> that immediate elections are not possible.
> >
> >They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
> >that they had to move forward.
>
> Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
> avoid an Islamist republic.
The Shi'ites suspect the US wants to rob them of power. They're
probably right.
> >> And, of course, the Iraqis
> >> will be running their lives very shortly.
>
> >*Some* Iraqis.
>
> No worse than what they had before, and better than some Americans and
> Brits.
It's quite debatable whether it will be no worse than what they had
before.
> >> Not exactly the actions of an aspiring colonial power, but then,
> >> calling the United States an aspiring colonial power is a bit like
> >> calling an adult an aspiring child.
> >
> >It has more sense than to do it hands on.
>
> Then the US isn't a colonial power. You may not like what it is, but I
> don't think it makes sense to use a term from starched-collars days.
>
I don't think I did use the word. It doesn't matter anyway what you
call it. It's what it does that matters.
> >> We will do what we have so often
> >> done, hand over power to
> >
> >a bullyboy, fund him to the hilt, and turn a blind eye so long as we
> >get our oil.
>
> If he has oil, he won't need our funding.
Saddam had oil. And your funding.
> Anyway, if we overthrow him
> as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
> and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
> so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
> flop: you'll blame us either way.
You could do neither. They are not actually the only alternatives.
Zen
Ty
> So,no, the UN is nor morally superior. But since it is made up of
sovereign
> nations rather than the representatives of individual people, it really is
> not even a deliberative body. Then, neither were the House of Lords or the
> Parliament for many centuries. They did not become so (to the extent that
> they are even yet) until after the UK became a nation instead of a mixture
> of competing interests on an island. But then, the Senate and the House of
> Representatives are not especially moral bodies, either. So why would you
> ever expect the UN, only a little over 50 years old, to be moral? Or even
> consistent?
I don't. I merely express surprise at those who do.
--Ty
Ty
> [Sharon] was and is a self-aggrandizing, self-centered, ignorant menace to
> all around him. That the Palestinians could have so frightened the Israeli
> voting population enough to put him back into a position of power is a
> testament to the depths of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and probably
> reflects most on the utter incompetence of Arafat.
Do you hold Arab leaders to the same standards as you do Israeli leaders? If
so, then where is your condemnation of the menagerie of murderous lunocrats
that comprise most of the leadership of the Arab world?
--Ty
Ty
>
> That cannot be known, Josh.
No, but some reasonable estimates can be made.
Based on widely available sources (including Amnesty International, hardly a
Bush Administration shill), it appears that Saddam slaughtered an average of
around 30,000 people per year.
The anti-American loons at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ list a *maximum* of
10,430 dead in the year since we invaded and removed Hussein. About 7272
occurred in the two months of military operations and the month after. So
the *maximum* death toll once hostilities ceased was about 3200 dead in the
remaining 9 months of the year. Taking this postwar rate and extending it
forward, one would expect about 4200 or so deaths in the first year after
May 2003.
4200 dead is *far* less than the 30,000 people killed by Saddam an an
average year.
This also makes a very interesting point about all those "compassionate"
people who opposed Saddam's removal. If his regime had lasted (say) another
10 years, past performance implies that he would have slaughtered ~300,000
or so. And of course, Uday and Qusay showed every indication of being just
as barbaric as Dad.
So these "compassionate" anti-war people apparently preferred that Saddam
slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis rather than have the Americans
remove him.
With "friends" like that, the Iraqi people need no enemies...
--Ty
Ty
news:5e7da04d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Saddam had oil. And your funding.
Re-check your facts.
As can be confirmed by any number of easily available monographs (I like the
"IISS Military Balance" series), Saddam was armed by France, Russia and
China, not by the US. The only US manufactured weapons that he had were a
few elderly M-47s transferred from Jordan and a few captured Kuwaiti
systems. So to imply that the US armed Saddam is ignorant at best and a flat
out lie at worst. Saddam was armed by the same nations who opposed his
removal -- and who had lucrative oil deals with him. Coincidence?
And by the way, even if the US did arm Saddam -- so what?
I mean, <gasp> we armed the Soviets in 1942-45. Would you argue that this
somehow made us unable to resist Soviet aggression duriong the Cold War?
As for the idiotic "war for oil" argument, I suggest that you check the
numbers. If the coalition confiscated every drop of Iraqi oil (less money
needed for operations), they would not even be able to pay the interest on
either the estimated cost of the invasion or the actual cost of the
invasion.
--Ty
Dr Zen
When will you cunts learn to do maths, huh?
Cost of war paid by taxpayers.
Profits from oil paid to Dick Cheney's mates.
Correlation between taxpayers and Dick C's mates: low.
Zen
Ty
> > And by the way, even if the US did arm Saddam -- so what?
> >
> > I mean, <gasp> we armed the Soviets in 1942-45. Would you argue that
this
> > somehow made us unable to resist Soviet aggression duriong the Cold War?
> >
> > As for the idiotic "war for oil" argument, I suggest that you check the
> > numbers. If the coalition confiscated every drop of Iraqi oil (less
money
> > needed for operations), they would not even be able to pay the interest
on
> > either the estimated cost of the invasion or the actual cost of the
> > invasion.
> >
> >
>
> When will you cunts learn to do maths, huh?
A lot sooner than you dullards will learn that swearing in written
communication is so ... mediocre.
In any case, the math(s) is still the same. The coalition can't pay the
interest on the cost of the war if it confiscated all Iraqi oil production.
So your moronic "war for oil" arguments make no sense -- but then, I suspect
that you're getting used to that by now.
--Ty
Ty
news:g31l50lplavm5ir1j...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:25:00 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> article <105kff9...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
> >In any case, the math(s) is still the same. The coalition can't pay the
> >interest on the cost of the war if it confiscated all Iraqi oil
production.
> >So your moronic "war for oil" arguments make no sense -- but then, I
suspect
> >that you're getting used to that by now.
>
> argument - certainly the most important of all.
Making the Middle East safe for everyone might be a better argument. Of
course, to do that, you'd have to remove almost all of the Arab lunocrats
first...
Of course, all of the anti-Israel folks seem very reluctant to apply the
same standards to the Arabs as they do to the Israelis. I wonder why?
--Ty
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<d4uh5056vp579pp4v...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Mar 2004 09:30:40 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>>
>> >Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<6i9e50p9sfrnceb86...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 16 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
>> >> infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
>> >> Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
>> >> has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
>> >> Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
>> >> already.
>>
>> >Except of course for the dead ones. Still, maybe in your fat head the
>> >only good Iraqi *is* a dead one.
>>
>> Far fewer than would have died under Saddam.
>
>That cannot be known, Josh.
No, but I think it's highly likely, given the figures we have from
groups like Amnesty International. If I didn't, I'd oppose the war.
>> Did you support the North
>> Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?
>
>Yes. With caveats, of course. It's more that I think all in all it was
>a good thing.
>
>> I did, and it wasn't because I was
>> fond of the North Vietnamese.
>>
>
>It's a pure fiction that the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people
>from suffering.
>
>Will it turn out to be a good thing all in all? There are far more
>issues than whether more or fewer Iraqis will die in the next few
>years.
I've never thought that the US /did/ invade Iraq to save the Iraqi
people from suffering, not primarily, anyway. But it was a
consideration in the decision of many of us to support the war.
>> >> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
>> >> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
>> >> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
>> >> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
>> >> >privatised everything in sight.
>> >>
>> >> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
>> >> that immediate elections are not possible.
>> >
>> >They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
>> >that they had to move forward.
>>
>> Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
>> avoid an Islamist republic.
>
>The Shi'ites suspect the US wants to rob them of power. They're
>probably right.
I don't think the US particularly cares, except insofar as it's hoped
that the Shi'ites will share power with the other major ethnic groups.
The Shi'ites may not want to share that power, and they, or some among
them, may want a government that is less than secular.
Fortunately, the Shi'ites were willing to accept the conclusions of
the UN.
>> >> And, of course, the Iraqis
>> >> will be running their lives very shortly.
>>
>> >*Some* Iraqis.
>>
>> No worse than what they had before, and better than some Americans and
>> Brits.
>
>It's quite debatable whether it will be no worse than what they had
>before.
I don't know about that. Saddam was extraordinarily brutal, even by
the standards of dictatorships. So while it's possible and even
probable that a new strongman will take power, and possible that he'll
be as brutal as Saddam, I don't think the last is particularly likely.
>> >> We will do what we have so often
>> >> done, hand over power to
>> >
>> >a bullyboy, fund him to the hilt, and turn a blind eye so long as we
>> >get our oil.
>>
>> If he has oil, he won't need our funding.
>
>Saddam had oil. And your funding.
AFAIK, Saddam had little if any funding from the US: he was a client
of the Soviets and French.
>> Anyway, if we overthrow him
>> as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
>> and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
>> so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
>> flop: you'll blame us either way.
>
>You could do neither. They are not actually the only alternatives.
No, but more often than not, there isn't much else. Pakistan is a case
in point. We could, at great cost, have overthrown Musharraf, or we
could have pressured and worked with him; we chose the latter, as we
usually do. What we couldn't do was give Pakistan democracy or stay
uninvolved, given that our national interest is directly affected.
Ty
news:96sl50huol57lc862...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:15:26 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> >Of course, all of the anti-Israel folks seem very reluctant to apply the
> >same standards to the Arabs as they do to the Israelis. I wonder why?
>
> Well, I'd say most people in the world see Israel as the oppressor and
> the Arabs as the oppressed.
An interesting, if absurd, position. Arabs outnumber the Israelis about 30-1
and have nearly limitless reserves of oil. Israel's primary strategic
resource is sand. Yet Israel is a modern Western democracy that exports
indigenously produced high tech equipment, while the Arab world is a
cesspool of human misery than seems to only export oil and terrorism.
Please tell us where we may find Israeli procounsuls and troops oppressing
the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.?
Please also tell us why Israel is to blame for the fact that the Arab world
is characterized by inept lunocracies that deprive their citizens of the
most basic rights that Western lefties take for granted -- secular
consensual government, women's rights, free speech, religious tolerance,
etc.
For some reason, you and your ilk seem reluctant to criticize the Arabs,
despite the fact that they are ruled by far more brutal (and inept) despots.
I wonder why?
--Ty
Joshua P. Hill
>"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<105jpdl...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>> As for the idiotic "war for oil" argument, I suggest that you check the
>> numbers. If the coalition confiscated every drop of Iraqi oil (less money
>> needed for operations), they would not even be able to pay the interest on
>> either the estimated cost of the invasion or the actual cost of the
>> invasion.
>>
>>
>
>When will you cunts learn to do maths, huh?
>
>Cost of war paid by taxpayers.
>
>Profits from oil paid to Dick Cheney's mates.
>
>Correlation between taxpayers and Dick C's mates: low.
It took a lot more than Dick Cheney to get us into this war -- and
there are much easier ways for Dick Cheney to increase his company's
profits than to start one.
Joshua P. Hill
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:25:00 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
>article <105kff9...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>In any case, the math(s) is still the same. The coalition can't pay the
>>interest on the cost of the war if it confiscated all Iraqi oil production.
>>So your moronic "war for oil" arguments make no sense -- but then, I suspect
>>that you're getting used to that by now.
>That's why one mustn't forget the "make the Middle East safe for Israel"
>argument - certainly the most important of all.
That's even sillier than the war for oil argument.
Joshua P. Hill
>Well, I'd say most people in the world see Israel as the oppressor and
>the Arabs as the oppressed. As they used to see whites in South Africa
>as oppressors, you know. Since the two-state solution seems hopeless,
>there are only two ways out. Exterminate or transfer all Arabs from the
>occupied territories or, alternatively, adopt the one man one vote
>policy and make Israel (that is, Palestine) a multi-ethnic state, like
>South Africa.
In other words, destroy Israel: after all, it's inhabited by Jews, and
we know how fair the world has been to Jews.
Ain't gonna happen, dude.
Joshua P. Hill
>An interesting, if absurd, position. Arabs outnumber the Israelis about 30-1
>and have nearly limitless reserves of oil. Israel's primary strategic
>resource is sand. Yet Israel is a modern Western democracy that exports
>indigenously produced high tech equipment, while the Arab world is a
>cesspool of human misery than seems to only export oil and terrorism.
>
>Please tell us where we may find Israeli procounsuls and troops oppressing
>the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.?
>
>Please also tell us why Israel is to blame for the fact that the Arab world
>is characterized by inept lunocracies that deprive their citizens of the
>most basic rights that Western lefties take for granted -- secular
>consensual government, women's rights, free speech, religious tolerance,
>etc.
>
>For some reason, you and your ilk seem reluctant to criticize the Arabs,
>despite the fact that they are ruled by far more brutal (and inept) despots.
>I wonder why?
Not to mention that it's the Arabs who have been warring against the
Israelis now for 50 years, and not the other way around. When the
Palestinians are serious about peace, they will have it, as the
Egyptians did.
Dr Zen
This is a problem and one that will continue, probably with no means
of resolution. We live in a world where the idea of a state's being
constituted on racial grounds is at best uncomfortable. We are stuck
with a situation in the Middle East where we are prepared to say we
will not tolerate the racism of the Arabs -- and it is right that we
should not -- but it's okay for the Jewish people of Israel.
It's right that the world has not been fair to Jews. Far from fair.
But the notion that a nation can have a homeland is a notion of the
forties, when Israel was founded. It's the idea behind the Volk and
Reich, which in other contexts we would not accept. Racially based
states were possible in the forties, as a concept, but are much less
so now. Of course, there's a lot of cake and eat it -- plenty of Arab
republics that ruthlessly repress nonArabs. But we think they are
wrong to do so.
It's an odd conflict of ideas, Josh, which you should recognise, that
we should believe it is okay for there to be a Jewish state, but not,
say, an "English" state. That's not to say the former shouldn't exist,
only to suggest that the problem, especially for the left -- even for
centrists like you -- is far too complicated to resolve with formulae.
Zen
Dr Zen
> On 18 Mar 2004 02:17:23 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<d4uh5056vp579pp4v...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 17 Mar 2004 09:30:40 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<6i9e50p9sfrnceb86...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On 16 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you expect? There was, after all, just a war, the country's
> >> >> infrastructure had been destroyed by Saddam's misrule, and sabotage by
> >> >> Baathist remnants slows reconstruction efforts. Still, good progress
> >> >> has been made, and it will not be long before the vast majority of
> >> >> Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, if they aren't
> >> >> already.
>
> >> >Except of course for the dead ones. Still, maybe in your fat head the
> >> >only good Iraqi *is* a dead one.
> >>
> >> Far fewer than would have died under Saddam.
> >
> >That cannot be known, Josh.
>
> No, but I think it's highly likely, given the figures we have from
> groups like Amnesty International. If I didn't, I'd oppose the war.
>
Amnesty have a tendency, which does them no favours, nor any of the
rest of us, of taking whatever figure comes into their head and
doubling it. When they guesstimate, Josh, you need to take it with a
pinch of salt.
A lot of people died in the Shia rebellion. No doubt about that. But
people die in civil unrest. They're dying now.
We don't know how many would have died under Saddam. We do know how
many are dying now.
Still, I'm not arguing that no Saddam is better, all in all, than
Saddam. I'm no apologist for that fucker!
> >> Did you support the North
> >> Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?
> >
> >Yes. With caveats, of course. It's more that I think all in all it was
> >a good thing.
> >
> >> I did, and it wasn't because I was
> >> fond of the North Vietnamese.
> >>
> >
> >It's a pure fiction that the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people
> >from suffering.
> >
> >Will it turn out to be a good thing all in all? There are far more
> >issues than whether more or fewer Iraqis will die in the next few
> >years.
>
> I've never thought that the US /did/ invade Iraq to save the Iraqi
> people from suffering, not primarily, anyway.
Not in the least. Come off it, man. You know it didn't.
> But it was a
> consideration in the decision of many of us to support the war.
>
Would you support a war against the Saudis?
> >> >> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
> >> >> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
> >> >> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
> >> >> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
> >> >> >privatised everything in sight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
> >> >> that immediate elections are not possible.
> >> >
> >> >They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
> >> >that they had to move forward.
> >>
> >> Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
> >> avoid an Islamist republic.
> >
> >The Shi'ites suspect the US wants to rob them of power. They're
> >probably right.
>
> I don't think the US particularly cares, except insofar as it's hoped
> that the Shi'ites will share power with the other major ethnic groups.
This is simply not true. The US doesn't want a Shia power bloc. It's
why it supported Saddam, part of why.
> The Shi'ites may not want to share that power, and they, or some among
> them, may want a government that is less than secular.
The Shi'ites have no reason to share power. In a democracy, the
majority rules, no?
> Fortunately, the Shi'ites were willing to accept the conclusions of
> the UN.
They were extremely unwilling. They ultimately saw no option.
>
> >> >> And, of course, the Iraqis
> >> >> will be running their lives very shortly.
>
> >> >*Some* Iraqis.
> >>
> >> No worse than what they had before, and better than some Americans and
> >> Brits.
> >
> >It's quite debatable whether it will be no worse than what they had
> >before.
>
> I don't know about that. Saddam was extraordinarily brutal, even by
> the standards of dictatorships.
He's been ultrademonised. There are lotsa bad guys who would give him
a run for his money.
> So while it's possible and even
> probable that a new strongman will take power, and possible that he'll
> be as brutal as Saddam, I don't think the last is particularly likely.
>
Shows what you know. They wouldn't dare at first, but give them time.
They know you guys don't give a shit. You don't worry about the Turks'
killing Kurds -- they've managed to knock off far more than old Saddam
even dreamed of.
> >> >> We will do what we have so often
> >> >> done, hand over power to
> >> >
> >> >a bullyboy, fund him to the hilt, and turn a blind eye so long as we
> >> >get our oil.
> >>
> >> If he has oil, he won't need our funding.
> >
> >Saddam had oil. And your funding.
>
> AFAIK, Saddam had little if any funding from the US: he was a client
> of the Soviets and French.
>
He was cunning enough to play both sides.
> >> Anyway, if we overthrow him
> >> as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
> >> and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
> >> so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
> >> flop: you'll blame us either way.
> >
> >You could do neither. They are not actually the only alternatives.
>
> No, but more often than not, there isn't much else.
Oh? If the brutal dictator is in a place with no resources, you
generally don't do either.
> Pakistan is a case
> in point. We could, at great cost, have overthrown Musharraf, or we
> could have pressured and worked with him; we chose the latter, as we
> usually do.
Bollocks. You ignored him almost completely until you needed him. You
paid him so little attention that you were willing to watch him
stumble into a nuclear conflict without bothering to stop him. (Of
course, you did pay him attention. You don't mind him at all. He's the
right kind of Muslim, a thorn in India's side, and he saved Pakistan
from democracy (which would be a disaster -- fuck, imagine if it
spread! Can you imagine a democratic Arabia?) and its badboy
intelligence services (mad-keen, power-hungry fanatics who are way too
close to the extremist types).)
I wonder whether you simply close your eyes to it all. You're too
smart to believe the shit you speak if you actually know the score.
> What we couldn't do was give Pakistan democracy or stay
> uninvolved, given that our national interest is directly affected.
Anyone would think you were involved with Pakistan for altruistic
reasons!
Zen
Roger R.
consistently demonstrated all his adult life, and I don't especially think I
threw any flowers at Arafat, either. That I did not also waste my time in
this particular message excoriating the variety of other Arab leaders in the
middle east simply indicates that I am capable of focusing on a particular
subject, not that I approve of them.
Your failure to recognize that indicates that you have a political agenda
rather than attempt to make any rational sense.
Roger R.
<to...@princenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gjen50lgm3m4pn51l...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:57:41 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
> <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
> <o16m509vnl6if61c7...@4ax.com>:
> Double standard?
You mean the same recipe as was applied to Zimbabwe/Rhodesia?
If I were an Israeli, I sure wouldn't accept that. Many of the Arabs would
love to have the opportunity that Mugabe has had, and those would be the
ones in charge.
Dr Zen
> <to...@princenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gjen50lgm3m4pn51l...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:57:41 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
> > <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
> > <o16m509vnl6if61c7...@4ax.com>:
> >
> > >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:19:31 -0300, to...@princenet.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > >>Well, I'd say most people in the world see Israel as the oppressor and
> > >>the Arabs as the oppressed. As they used to see whites in South Africa
> > >>as oppressors, you know. Since the two-state solution seems hopeless,
> > >>there are only two ways out. Exterminate or transfer all Arabs from the
> > >>occupied territories or, alternatively, adopt the one man one vote
> > >>policy and make Israel (that is, Palestine) a multi-ethnic state, like
> > >>South Africa.
> > >
> > >In other words, destroy Israel: after all, it's inhabited by Jews, and
> > >we know how fair the world has been to Jews.
> > >
> > >Ain't gonna happen, dude.
> >
> > Why the recipe recommended to South Africa cannot be applied to Israel?
> > Double standard?
>
> You mean the same recipe as was applied to Zimbabwe/Rhodesia?
>
No, he was quite clear what recipe he meant. It clearly is a double
standard. The argument is only over whether it's justified.
> If I were an Israeli, I sure wouldn't accept that.
An Israeli Jew, you mean.
> Many of the Arabs would
> love to have the opportunity that Mugabe has had, and those would be the
> ones in charge.
Would they? Lots of people said that about the blacks in Saffa. They
allowed their prejudices to do their thinking for them too.
Zen
Joshua P. Hill
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:57:41 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
><o16m509vnl6if61c7...@4ax.com>:
>Why the recipe recommended to South Africa cannot be applied to Israel?
>Double standard?
What does one have to do with the other? South Africa was a country in
which the majority was under the control of a minority that consisted
of immigrants of a different race; Isarel is the result of the UN
partition of Palestine into two states on the basis of tribe rather
than race, and the refusal of some Arabs to accept that partition. For
a closer analogy, consider Pakistan and India.
Joshua P. Hill
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:56:15 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
><sv5m50dt90vbrqtkt...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:26:11 -0300, to...@princenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:25:00 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
>>>article <105kff9...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>>>In any case, the math(s) is still the same. The coalition can't pay the
>>>>interest on the cost of the war if it confiscated all Iraqi oil production.
>>>>So your moronic "war for oil" arguments make no sense -- but then, I suspect
>>>>that you're getting used to that by now.
>>
>>>That's why one mustn't forget the "make the Middle East safe for Israel"
>>>argument - certainly the most important of all.
>>
>>That's even sillier than the war for oil argument.
>
>Pray, why is it silly? Just saying won't make it so.
>
>The oil argument doesn't explain all things. This one does. That's why
>you seem to be uncomfortable with it.
One should be careful of things that pretend to explain all things.
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<fb3m50t9j8t233js0...@4ax.com>...
>> No, but I think it's highly likely, given the figures we have from
>> groups like Amnesty International. If I didn't, I'd oppose the war.
>>
>
>Amnesty have a tendency, which does them no favours, nor any of the
>rest of us, of taking whatever figure comes into their head and
>doubling it. When they guesstimate, Josh, you need to take it with a
>pinch of salt.
True. But the estimates I've seen are all pretty high, wherever they
come from. And whatever causalties the war has caused will probably
diminish over the next few years; I say probably, because it's not
impossible that ethnic hatreds will eventually lead to civil war.
>> >> Did you support the North
>> >> Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?
>> >
>> >Yes. With caveats, of course. It's more that I think all in all it was
>> >a good thing.
>> >
>> >> I did, and it wasn't because I was
>> >> fond of the North Vietnamese.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It's a pure fiction that the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people
>> >from suffering.
>> >
>> >Will it turn out to be a good thing all in all? There are far more
>> >issues than whether more or fewer Iraqis will die in the next few
>> >years.
>>
>> I've never thought that the US /did/ invade Iraq to save the Iraqi
>> people from suffering, not primarily, anyway.
>
>Not in the least. Come off it, man. You know it didn't.
I don't, really, because while I don't consider the Bush
Administration a particular compassionate bunch (note understatement),
I don't know what went on in the White House, either. Not every
Republican is a moral monster, though they do their best to hide that.
>> But it was a
>> consideration in the decision of many of us to support the war.
>>
>Would you support a war against the Saudis?
Not unless I had reason to believe the Saudi government was supporting
terrorism, committing genocide, or the like.
>> >> >> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
>> >> >> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
>> >> >> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
>> >> >> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
>> >> >> >privatised everything in sight.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
>> >> >> that immediate elections are not possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
>> >> >that they had to move forward.
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
>> >> avoid an Islamist republic.
>> >
>> >The Shi'ites suspect the US wants to rob them of power. They're
>> >probably right.
>>
>> I don't think the US particularly cares, except insofar as it's hoped
>> that the Shi'ites will share power with the other major ethnic groups.
>
>This is simply not true. The US doesn't want a Shia power bloc. It's
>why it supported Saddam, part of why.
I disagree. The US encouraged the Shi'ites to rebel against Saddam
(with disastrous results for the Shi'ites). And for the most part, the
US didn't support Saddam -- he was a client of the Russians, French,
and Chinese -- the main exception being when the US and Iraq shared a
common enemy, fundamentalist Iran.
Any policy that /didn't/ assume the Shi'ites would become the dominant
group would be laughably naive.
>> The Shi'ites may not want to share that power, and they, or some among
>> them, may want a government that is less than secular.
>
>The Shi'ites have no reason to share power. In a democracy, the
>majority rules, no?
Hence self-rule in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? Federation and
self-determination are the keys to keeping minority nationalities
happy; I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that
post-imperial nations that don't recognize that end up with Chechnyas,
while those nations that do end up with Quebecs. Perhaps, in an ideal
world, the Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds would go their own way, but
Turkey would never accept an independent Kurdistan.
>> Fortunately, the Shi'ites were willing to accept the conclusions of
>> the UN.
>
>They were extremely unwilling. They ultimately saw no option.
What option did they themselves offer? Elections for the Shi'ites and
Kurds, but not for the Sunnis? That wasn't exactly realistic.
>> I don't know about that. Saddam was extraordinarily brutal, even by
>> the standards of dictatorships.
>
>He's been ultrademonised. There are lotsa bad guys who would give him
>a run for his money.
Not if the figures about the number of people he killed are even
remotely accurate. How many dictators in power today have killed
hundreds of thousands of their own people? Thirty years ago one could
point to Mao and Pol Pot; today I can't think of any besides Saddam.
>> So while it's possible and even
>> probable that a new strongman will take power, and possible that he'll
>> be as brutal as Saddam, I don't think the last is particularly likely.
>>
>
>Shows what you know. They wouldn't dare at first, but give them time.
>They know you guys don't give a shit. You don't worry about the Turks'
>killing Kurds -- they've managed to knock off far more than old Saddam
>even dreamed of.
We do worry about it; it's been a major concern.
As to whether we give a shit, well, of course, that's nonsense: the
real question is whether we -- and you -- will intervene.
>> >Saddam had oil. And your funding.
>>
>> AFAIK, Saddam had little if any funding from the US: he was a client
>> of the Soviets and French.
>>
>
>He was cunning enough to play both sides.
He didn't play us very well, then, because we weren't close to him and
didn't give him significant support, except for a brief period during
the war with Iran when we supplied him with satellite intelligence.
>> >> Anyway, if we overthrow him
>> >> as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
>> >> and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
>> >> so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
>> >> flop: you'll blame us either way.
>> >
>> >You could do neither. They are not actually the only alternatives.
>>
>> No, but more often than not, there isn't much else.
>
>Oh? If the brutal dictator is in a place with no resources, you
>generally don't do either.
We do no less than you, or anybody else. Most of the time we don't
have the right and frequently we don't have the power to intervene.
>> Pakistan is a case
>> in point. We could, at great cost, have overthrown Musharraf, or we
>> could have pressured and worked with him; we chose the latter, as we
>> usually do.
>
>Bollocks. You ignored him almost completely until you needed him. You
>paid him so little attention that you were willing to watch him
>stumble into a nuclear conflict without bothering to stop him. (Of
>course, you did pay him attention. You don't mind him at all. He's the
>right kind of Muslim, a thorn in India's side, and he saved Pakistan
>from democracy (which would be a disaster -- fuck, imagine if it
>spread! Can you imagine a democratic Arabia?) and its badboy
>intelligence services (mad-keen, power-hungry fanatics who are way too
>close to the extremist types).)
>
>I wonder whether you simply close your eyes to it all. You're too
>smart to believe the shit you speak if you actually know the score.
Far from it. We sanctioned both India and Pakistan after they exploded
nuclear weapons. What were we supposed to do other than that? Invade?
And we have no interest in a "thorn in India's side"; we have no beef
with India and are in fact far closer to India today than we were
during the cold war, when India tended to be pro-Soviet and Pakistan
was a useful ally.
What we did do, with other nations, was jawbone Musharraf into ending
Pakistani support for the campaign of terror against India, thereby
averting what might have become a nuclear war.
>> What we couldn't do was give Pakistan democracy or stay
>> uninvolved, given that our national interest is directly affected.
>
>Anyone would think you were involved with Pakistan for altruistic
>reasons!
Our reasons are what they are. One can't survive without a certain
degree of realpolitik; the real question is where to draw the line.
Joshua P. Hill
Why do you assume I oppose the notion of an "English" state, Zen? In
fact, I favor the existence of national polities, albeit I believe
they should be stripped of some of their traditional prerogatives. In
part, that's because they maintain cultural diversity, which is sorely
threatened; and in part that's because most of the world's conflicts
are now between tribal groups that, for reasons of history or
post-imperial map-making, have been forced to live together in a
post-imperial context.
In an ideal world, Jew and Arab would indeed live side-by-side in a
common state. In a slightly sane world, they would settle the current
conflict, and cooperate for their mutual benefit. But I'm afraid that
if such sanity exists in the world -- and I'm skeptical on that point,
albeit the US and Europe have made notable strides in that direction
-- it hasn't hit the Middle East. (Or, perhaps, has disappeared from
the Middle East, since the Moslem world was until recently more
tolerant of religious minorities than Christianity.) A reunified
Palestine would, even if it transcended the difficulties of the last
50 years, be subject to the same centrifugal forces that tore
Palestine apart 50 years ago: the Jews, with their European skills,
would become economically dominant, and that would foster resentment
among the Arabs; the Arabs would likely elect an authoritarian regime,
which would be unacceptable to the Jews. Far better, I think, to hope
for ratification of the original partition, and let both sides grow to
understand one another -- before it's too late, and the hatreds become
ingrained, as they have in Ireland, Chechnya, the Balkans, or any
number of trouble points throughout the world.
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<7sqe50dbd0qbrihq6...@4ax.com>...
>> Two different questions, I think. Saddam's cat-and-mouse games with
>> the inspectors, his refusal to come clean over what had happened to
>> the WMD's, and, apparently, his own belief in fictitious weapons
>> programs all created the impression that Iraq did have such weapons.
>> Even Chirac and Putin believed that.
>>
>
>None of these things amounted to a case for his having them. *You*
>believed it, Josh, because *you* wanted to.
I believed it because the alternative -- that Saddam was willing to
undergo crippling sanctions for weapons he didn't have -- seemed to me
improbable. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong, but I
don't think it had anything to do with /wanting/ to believe he had
them.
>> So I don't think Bush and Blair were lying. What the Bushies did do, I
>> gather, is begin with the assumption that the WMD's were present, and
>> overinterpret fragmentary evidence/possibly pressure intelligence
>> agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear.
>Which is, I think, what I suggested.
>
>We can split hairs over whether you think that's "lying" or not.
>
>We know they lied over specifics -- these weapons' being here, those
>there -- and we know that to some extent they lied over who their
>sources were (they said "Iraqi military sources" when what they ought
>to have said was "Chalabi's party members who claim to have spoken to
>Iraqi military sources").
Didn't know about that last, but I believe you. And agree overall.
>> >I think they lied, pure and simple. I think they hoped they would turn
>> >up *enough* to be able to claim that they hadn't lied, or in the worst
>> >case, that the war would run smoothly enough for them to claim that it
>> >simply is not an issue.
>>
>> It seems to me that had they suspected the weapons weren't there, they
>> would merely have used another justification.
>
>What other justification? At least in the UK we refused to buy any
>other.
>
>It was *absolutely key* to Blair's gaining support for the war. He
>couldn't win a vote in the House on any other count.
>
>They certainly suspected the weapons weren't there. They're not
>fucking stupid! They hoped the waters would be muddied enough that it
>wouldn't matter.
The scuttlebutt is that the Bushies chose to focus on the WMD's
because it was the one reason everyone in the White House could agree
on. Others would, I think, have included checks to suicide bombers,
the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr., the attacks on American and
British planes in the flyover zone, the refusal to abide by Security
Council resolutions, the need to patrol the flyover zone and
maintainan uncomfortable presence in Saudi Arabia, and the suspicion
(not born out) that Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda, as well as
the desire to send a message to the "axis of evil" countries (not, I
think, a small concern, but not one that's talked about much, for
obvious reasons) and the neo-Conservative utopian attempt to impose
our democratic perfection on the oppressed camel-riders of the world.
Bush I think would have had a much easier time winning support for the
war than Blair, coming as it did in the wake of 9/11. Among other
things, many Americans believed erroneously that Saddam was behind
those attacks. Still, it would have been a much chancier thing.
>> No reason for the
>> embarrassment.
>>
>
>They were shipped to Syria. They only had programmes. We meant
>Scuds...
>
>You see?
Seems to me that just caused more embarrassment.
>> >I think they lied because they claimed they had evidence of WMDs
>> >rather than saying that they weren't sure, or that the extent of his
>> >programmes was unclear but they were worried enough to want more
>> >vigorous action, or any other thing that might have indicated anything
>> >but that they were *certain* he posed a clear and present threat to
>> >our forces and interests.
>> >
>> >To think otherwise would suggest that your intelligence setup, armed
>> >as it is with hundreds of informers, with satellites, with
>> >communications intercepts on an astonishing scale, with enormous reach
>> >and scale, got the situation catastrophically wrong. Are you
>> >suggesting that?
>>
>> It often happens. Just look at North Korea, Iran, and Libya, not to
>> mention Pakistan.
>
>What do you think we got wrong in those cases? We knew exactly what
>Libya had! North Korea is more difficult to penetrate. We're quite
>sure what Iran has. We weren't surprised by Pakistan. We were fully
>aware of Iraq's programmes. Our proxy destroyed its lead nuclear
>facility. We knew it had chems -- we sold them to it! We knew what its
>capabilities were like in detail. We weren't sure it had destroyed all
>its tactical CBW, but these are not WMD in anyone's language anyway,
>and we have a long history of being totally unconcerned about their
>using them. I don't recall any clamour to remove Saddam after Halabja,
>Josh, nor on account of gassing Iranian troops.
Not according to what I've read. We were surprised by the extent of
the Libyan proram. We didn't know that North Korea had started making
bombs again, and we didn't know that they had acquired enriched
uranium technology, which is harder to detect, from Pakistan. We still
don't know what Iran has, but as I understand it, even the revelations
to date suggest that their programs are more advanced than we thought.
And while we suspected the Khan laboratories, we had no proof of those
activities until very recently, and still don't know (publicly, at
least) the extent of official Pakistani cooperation.
Nor is it true that we haven't pressured nations over the presence
WMD's -- in fact, we've devoted a lot of attention to it their control
over the years. One can certainly point to inconsistencies -- I've
seen no evidence that we sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis, but part
of the Reagan Administration certainly turned a blind eye during the
Iraqi-Iranian war, and it's no secret that we haven't pressured the
Israelis over their nuclear arsenal. But no one is suggesting that our
behavior is entirely eleemosynary, at least I'm not: we worry about
threats to our own hides first, and, like Gekko, look the other way
when those we need sin. What else to do? We needed Pakistan's
cooperation to deal with Al Quaeda, and part of the price of that was
lifting the sanctions we'd imposed after they acquired nuclear
weapons; we need the cooperation of the various 'stans, and so
overlooked their human rights violations; we needed the cooperation of
Russia, and so muted our rhetoric over Chechnya. It's hard to see what
else we could have done.
Joshua P. Hill
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:23:02 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
><jirp5014fg3vep81d...@4ax.com>:
>They are better than the things concocted from the start to not explain
>anything and just divert the attention.
>
>You don't have any answer, period. Looser.
Answer to what? You seem to be assuming that there's a question.
Ty
news:j0fn50dt4q0jjceqj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:49:27 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> >Please tell us where we may find Israeli procounsuls and troops
oppressing
> >the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.?
>
> Saudi Arabia and Egypt are puppet regimes that oppress their own people
> on behalf of USA/Israel.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are Israeli puppets???
Well, you appear to have departed controlled flight. Please obtain better
medication from your psychiatrist and get back with us when you've
stabilized.
> >Please also tell us why Israel is to blame for the fact that the Arab
world
> >is characterized by inept lunocracies that deprive their citizens of the
> >most basic rights that Western lefties take for granted -- secular
> >consensual government, women's rights, free speech, religious tolerance,
> >etc.
>
> Western values post-1965 don't admit that a State might be founded on
> the basis of ethnicity or race
In the Arab world, states appear to be founded on the basis of most
delusional.
> as Israel wants for itself, (but not for
> others, of course).
Non-answer. Please try again.
Please also tell us why Israel is to blame for the fact that the Arab world
is characterized by inept lunocracies that deprive their citizens of the
most basic rights that Western lefties take for granted -- secular
consensual government, women's rights, free speech, religious tolerance,
etc.
> The name of the game is "double standard". And it became too visible to
> go on unchecked.
Well, the irony-meter just exploded. And yes, the name of the game is
"Double Standard" with the subtitle "Hate Israel No Matter What and Give
Arab Lunocracies a Handwave".
> >For some reason, you and your ilk seem reluctant to criticize the Arabs,
> >despite the fact that they are ruled by far more brutal (and inept)
despots.
> >I wonder why?
>
> Can't you guess?
Oh yes. I just wanted to see if you were man (?) enough to admit it. Are
you?
--Ty
Ty
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
> > Do you hold Arab leaders to the same standards as you do Israeli
leaders?
> > If
> > so, then where is your condemnation of the menagerie of murderous
> > lunocrats
> > that comprise most of the leadership of the Arab world?
> >
> > --Ty
> >
> >
> My focus in this message was the idiotic, self-centered crap that Sharon
has
> consistently demonstrated all his adult life, and I don't especially think
I
> threw any flowers at Arafat, either. That I did not also waste my time in
> this particular message excoriating the variety of other Arab leaders in
the
> middle east simply indicates that I am capable of focusing on a particular
> subject, not that I approve of them.
Ah -- so do you agree that the assorted Arab lunocrats are at least as bad
and in many cases far worse than the Israelis?
> Your failure to recognize that indicates that you have a political agenda
> rather than attempt to make any rational sense.
Uh huh.
All I am asking is why you seem so reticent to hold the Arabs to the same
standards that you hold Israel to. Your sputtering above indicates that
*you* have the political agenda. (If blind, unreasoning hatred of Israel can
be characterized as a "political agenda" that is).
You appear to be one of those odd, indulgent Western lefties who
inexplicably hates the only Western democracy in the region, yet seems
curiously undisturbed by the menagerie of Arab lunocrats that are far worse
than Sharon or any Israeli leader.
I guess that we can find bigotry (and utter stupidity) among lefties too,
can't we?
--Ty
Joshua P. Hill
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:24:12 -0500 Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in article
><q66q501tgndimm1pp...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>>>>>>In any case, the math(s) is still the same. The coalition can't pay the
>>>>>>>>interest on the cost of the war if it confiscated all Iraqi oil production.
>>>>>>>>So your moronic "war for oil" arguments make no sense -- but then, I suspect
>>>>>>>>that you're getting used to that by now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's why one mustn't forget the "make the Middle East safe for Israel"
>>>>>>>argument - certainly the most important of all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's even sillier than the war for oil argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pray, why is it silly? Just saying won't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>The oil argument doesn't explain all things. This one does. That's why
>>>>>you seem to be uncomfortable with it.
>>>>
>>>>One should be careful of things that pretend to explain all things.
>>>
>>>They are better than the things concocted from the start to not explain
>>>anything and just divert the attention.
>>>
>>>You don't have any answer, period. Looser.
>>
>>Answer to what? You seem to be assuming that there's a question.
>
>Do you really think you'll go away with that? There is of course a
>question that made you uncomfortable and you chose to "forget":
>
>>>>>Pray, why is it silly? Just saying won't make it so.
>
>The link:
>
>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
>http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
It means absolutely nothing. Why some people dredge such stuff up as
if it were significant is beyond me.
Dr Zen
I suppose philosophically you cannot. But I do. I strongly oppose the
parties who advocate one. I've fought those cunts in the street.
> In
> fact, I favor the existence of national polities, albeit I believe
> they should be stripped of some of their traditional prerogatives.
We are not talking about "national polities". We are talking about
"racial polities". I suppose they boil down to the same thing. Half of
Kosovo is once more in flames because Kosovo does not have a "national
polity". But an "ethnically Kosovan" state doesn't sound good to
Western European ears. We are fighting against an upsurge in
"nationally" based hatred and violence.
> In
> part, that's because they maintain cultural diversity, which is sorely
> threatened
Do they? I'd say that they can be adequately protected in a
multicultural state.
> and in part that's because most of the world's conflicts
> are now between tribal groups that, for reasons of history or
> post-imperial map-making, have been forced to live together in a
> post-imperial context.
>
But rearranging the map of the world by ethnicity is not a solution.
Our friends in Serbia and Rwanda tried, and nearly succeeded, but you
surely wouldn't applaud them for it?
> In an ideal world, Jew and Arab would indeed live side-by-side in a
> common state.
They manage it in the UK.
> In a slightly sane world, they would settle the current
> conflict, and cooperate for their mutual benefit. But I'm afraid that
> if such sanity exists in the world -- and I'm skeptical on that point,
> albeit the US and Europe have made notable strides in that direction
> -- it hasn't hit the Middle East.
It is not entirlely the Middle East's doing. There are forces in the
US and Europe who feel they have more to gain from continued friction.
> (Or, perhaps, has disappeared from
> the Middle East, since the Moslem world was until recently more
> tolerant of religious minorities than Christianity.) A reunified
> Palestine would, even if it transcended the difficulties of the last
> 50 years, be subject to the same centrifugal forces that tore
> Palestine apart 50 years ago: the Jews, with their European skills
!
> would become economically dominant
Do you know which group is "economically dominant" in west Africa? It
might amuse you to learn it is the Lebanese. They use their
non-European skills. Of course, in west Africa they're practically
white men, so your point still holds.
> and that would foster resentment
> among the Arabs; the Arabs would likely elect an authoritarian regime,
> which would be unacceptable to the Jews.
This is pure, unmitigated racism. I'm astonished that you are willing
to be so frankly racist. Maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe you simply don't
recognise that it *is* racism when it's directed against Arabs.
> Far better, I think, to hope
> for ratification of the original partition, and let both sides grow to
> understand one another -- before it's too late, and the hatreds become
> ingrained, as they have in Ireland, Chechnya, the Balkans, or any
> number of trouble points throughout the world.
No one has suggested partitioning Northern Ireland! The original
partition was most of the problem. Chechnya is an overwhelmingly
Moslem state subsumed by a largely Christian empire with which it does
not share values. Partitition probably would be part of the solution.
The Balkans' problems were better controlled when they were held
together in a multiethnic state.
Zen
Dr Zen
> On 19 Mar 2004 12:42:31 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >Joshua P. Hill <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<fb3m50t9j8t233js0...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> No, but I think it's highly likely, given the figures we have from
> >> groups like Amnesty International. If I didn't, I'd oppose the war.
> >>
> >
> >Amnesty have a tendency, which does them no favours, nor any of the
> >rest of us, of taking whatever figure comes into their head and
> >doubling it. When they guesstimate, Josh, you need to take it with a
> >pinch of salt.
>
> True. But the estimates I've seen are all pretty high, wherever they
> come from.
I've never seen a credible source that shows they were high *outside
of* the conflict with Iran and the aftermath of the first Gulf War.
This is all relative, of course. They were higher, whoever's counting,
than they are in Sweden.
> And whatever causalties the war has caused will probably
> diminish over the next few years; I say probably, because it's not
> impossible that ethnic hatreds will eventually lead to civil war.
>
I should think we'll act to avoid that by ensuring someone has a
preponderance of power.
> >> >> Did you support the North
> >> >> Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?
> >> >
> >> >Yes. With caveats, of course. It's more that I think all in all it was
> >> >a good thing.
> >> >
> >> >> I did, and it wasn't because I was
> >> >> fond of the North Vietnamese.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >It's a pure fiction that the US invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people
> >> >from suffering.
> >> >
> >> >Will it turn out to be a good thing all in all? There are far more
> >> >issues than whether more or fewer Iraqis will die in the next few
> >> >years.
> >>
> >> I've never thought that the US /did/ invade Iraq to save the Iraqi
> >> people from suffering, not primarily, anyway.
> >
> >Not in the least. Come off it, man. You know it didn't.
>
> I don't, really, because while I don't consider the Bush
> Administration a particular compassionate bunch (note understatement),
> I don't know what went on in the White House, either.
They never felt the need to "liberate" Iraq, or anywhere else, before
9/11.
> Not every
> Republican is a moral monster, though they do their best to hide that.
>
They might well not be, but the ones running the show are. People like
Perle, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are as bad as you get, I think.
> >> But it was a
> >> consideration in the decision of many of us to support the war.
> >>
> >Would you support a war against the Saudis?
>
> Not unless I had reason to believe the Saudi government was supporting
> terrorism
Jeez man. I don't think you even think before you spout, sometimes.
There is *every* reason to believe that the Saudi gov't sponsors
terrorism. And practically none at all to believe Saddam did!
The linkage between the war on Iraq and the "war" on terror is
spurious. You make yourself look foolish, insanely partisan by
insisting on it.
> committing genocide, or the like.
>
Saddam wasn't "committing genocide". He killed a bunch of Kurds in the
early nineties, but he wasn't trying to wipe them out in the
noughties. It's just this side of demented to suggest he was.
The Saudis are unlikely to commit genocide, anyway, on account of they
maintain a pretty much racially pure state. They are so intolerant, no
one but Arabs is likely to want to live there anyway.
> >> >> >> >Iraqis quite clearly are not running their own lives. They are not to
> >> >> >> >be trusted with elections. God forbid, eh? They'd only go and vote in
> >> >> >> >those nasty Shi'ite clerics who want an Islamic Republic and
> >> >> >> >fuck-you-yankee politics. Best not let them have a vote until you've
> >> >> >> >privatised everything in sight.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Even the Shi'ite clerics are on board now that the UN has confirmed
> >> >> >> that immediate elections are not possible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >They should have opposed any other solution forever? They accepted
> >> >> >that they had to move forward.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, yes, but so? This has little to do with our obvious desire to
> >> >> avoid an Islamist republic.
> >> >
> >> >The Shi'ites suspect the US wants to rob them of power. They're
> >> >probably right.
> >>
> >> I don't think the US particularly cares, except insofar as it's hoped
> >> that the Shi'ites will share power with the other major ethnic groups.
> >
> >This is simply not true. The US doesn't want a Shia power bloc. It's
> >why it supported Saddam, part of why.
>
> I disagree.
You're a complete fool, then.
> The US encouraged the Shi'ites to rebel against Saddam
> (with disastrous results for the Shi'ites).
You'll note that they were happy for him to have internal strife, but
not so keen on the Shia actually winning.
> And for the most part, the
> US didn't support Saddam -- he was a client of the Russians, French,
> and Chinese -- the main exception being when the US and Iraq shared a
> common enemy, fundamentalist Iran.
>
This simply is not true. The USA supported Saddam and encouraged his
ambitions. They saw him as a handy bulwark against Iranian Shi'ism,
and a secular counterforce to the religious Islam represented by the
Saudis. The last thing the US wants to see is another religious
government controlling a rich oil nation in the Middle East.
> Any policy that /didn't/ assume the Shi'ites would become the dominant
> group would be laughably naive.
Say hello to President Chalabi. Enjoy laughing at his naivety.
>
> >> The Shi'ites may not want to share that power, and they, or some among
> >> them, may want a government that is less than secular.
> >
> >The Shi'ites have no reason to share power. In a democracy, the
> >majority rules, no?
>
> Hence self-rule in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? Federation and
> self-determination are the keys to keeping minority nationalities
> happy
Are they? The UK is not, in fact, a federation. Power was not devolved
to Scotland and Wales to keep the "minority nationalities" happy. This
was driven by Blairite ideology. The English majority was able to
make the concession because it is secure in its dominance over the
rest of the UK and, importantly, because it does not perceive much
ethnic difference between it and Scots or Welshies -- partly because
many English have Celtic ancestors of one type or another.
> I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that
> post-imperial nations that don't recognize that end up with Chechnyas,
> while those nations that do end up with Quebecs.
Don't be silly. Russia is offering Chechnya Quebec. It wants
Kazakhstan.
> Perhaps, in an ideal
> world, the Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds would go their own way, but
> Turkey would never accept an independent Kurdistan.
>
Fuck Turkey! Who cares what it would accept? It is part of the
community of nations. The Shi'ites and Sunnis cannot go their own way.
They are intermixed. You are looking at Bosnia, not Canada.
> >> Fortunately, the Shi'ites were willing to accept the conclusions of
> >> the UN.
> >
> >They were extremely unwilling. They ultimately saw no option.
>
> What option did they themselves offer? Elections for the Shi'ites and
> Kurds, but not for the Sunnis? That wasn't exactly realistic.
They want to avoid a government by Chalabi and his crew. They don't
want to see him sell off everything to Halliburton. If an Iraqi
"government" sells assets, it can be made legally watertight. They
worry about that. They also worry that if an American-backed Sunni
gets his hands on power, he'll "postpone" the elections. Create enough
unrest and there cannot *ever* be elections. It's been done.
> >> I don't know about that. Saddam was extraordinarily brutal, even by
> >> the standards of dictatorships.
> >
> >He's been ultrademonised. There are lotsa bad guys who would give him
> >a run for his money.
>
> Not if the figures about the number of people he killed are even
> remotely accurate.
They aren't.
> How many dictators in power today have killed
> hundreds of thousands of their own people?
Hundreds of thousands is a screaming exaggeration.
> Thirty years ago one could
> point to Mao and Pol Pot; today I can't think of any besides Saddam.
>
Most dictators just don't have the population at hand or the means.
Mugabe would gladly kill hundreds of thousands if he could. So would
the guy in Equatorial Guinea, but he can only eat so many.
Making out that Saddam is uniquely evil is stupid. How can you
understand the world and the people in it if you take such a
simplistic approach? How can you understand the mechanisms that create
such men?
> >> So while it's possible and even
> >> probable that a new strongman will take power, and possible that he'll
> >> be as brutal as Saddam, I don't think the last is particularly likely.
> >>
> >
> >Shows what you know. They wouldn't dare at first, but give them time.
> >They know you guys don't give a shit. You don't worry about the Turks'
> >killing Kurds -- they've managed to knock off far more than old Saddam
> >even dreamed of.
>
> We do worry about it; it's been a major concern.
You never hear an end of it!
> As to whether we give a shit, well, of course, that's nonsense: the
> real question is whether we -- and you -- will intervene.
Of course we won't. We don't give a fuck. They can kill them all so
far as we're concerned. So long as they stop doing it in Haringey.
> >> >Saddam had oil. And your funding.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, Saddam had little if any funding from the US: he was a client
> >> of the Soviets and French.
> >>
> >
> >He was cunning enough to play both sides.
>
> He didn't play us very well, then, because we weren't close to him and
> didn't give him significant support, except for a brief period during
> the war with Iran when we supplied him with satellite intelligence.
This is simply not true.
> >> >> Anyway, if we overthrow him
> >> >> as we did Saddam, you'll say we're trying to take over the country,
> >> >> and if we prop him up you'll say we're supporting a brutal dictator,
> >> >> so from your perspective it makes little difference whether we flip or
> >> >> flop: you'll blame us either way.
> >> >
> >> >You could do neither. They are not actually the only alternatives.
> >>
> >> No, but more often than not, there isn't much else.
> >
> >Oh? If the brutal dictator is in a place with no resources, you
> >generally don't do either.
>
> We do no less than you, or anybody else.
I'm not the one claiming my gov't is a moral force in the world.
> Most of the time we don't
> have the right and frequently we don't have the power to intervene.
>
The right? You never let that stop you! The power?
> >> Pakistan is a case
> >> in point. We could, at great cost, have overthrown Musharraf, or we
> >> could have pressured and worked with him; we chose the latter, as we
> >> usually do.
> >
> >Bollocks. You ignored him almost completely until you needed him. You
> >paid him so little attention that you were willing to watch him
> >stumble into a nuclear conflict without bothering to stop him. (Of
> >course, you did pay him attention. You don't mind him at all. He's the
> >right kind of Muslim, a thorn in India's side, and he saved Pakistan
> >from democracy (which would be a disaster -- fuck, imagine if it
> >spread! Can you imagine a democratic Arabia?) and its badboy
> >intelligence services (mad-keen, power-hungry fanatics who are way too
> >close to the extremist types).)
> >
> >I wonder whether you simply close your eyes to it all. You're too
> >smart to believe the shit you speak if you actually know the score.
>
> Far from it. We sanctioned both India and Pakistan after they exploded
> nuclear weapons.
Your sanctions are hilariously weak. They don't actually prevent
commerce.
> What were we supposed to do other than that? Invade?
You invaded Iraq for the sake of imaginary ones. Pakistan's are real!
> And we have no interest in a "thorn in India's side"; we have no beef
> with India and are in fact far closer to India today than we were
> during the cold war, when India tended to be pro-Soviet and Pakistan
> was a useful ally.
This shows that you don't understand geopolitics too well. India
remains a serious concern for the US.
> What we did do, with other nations, was jawbone Musharraf into ending
> Pakistani support for the campaign of terror against India, thereby
> averting what might have become a nuclear war.
You asked him to back down because the double standard of having
Pakistan as an ally in the "war on terror" while it prosecuted a war
of terror with India was too much even for the Bushites to bear. Once
the focus has moved elsewhere, Pakistan will go back to training,
funding and arming terrorists in Kashmir.
> >> What we couldn't do was give Pakistan democracy or stay
> >> uninvolved, given that our national interest is directly affected.
> >
> >Anyone would think you were involved with Pakistan for altruistic
> >reasons!
>
> Our reasons are what they are. One can't survive without a certain
> degree of realpolitik; the real question is where to draw the line.
Survive?
Zen
Ty
news:57ps50hr4kd8nhs8o...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:22:28 -0600 "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> >Saudi Arabia and Egypt are Israeli puppets???
>
> Wait till you see those that want to (and will) replace them soon.
Uh huh.
> >Oh yes. I just wanted to see if you were man (?) enough to admit it. Are
> >you?
>
> Admit what?
Re-read the post. I'm sure if you try, you can figure the question out for
yourself.
--Ty