Time to Wag the Dog Again Bill !
Klaus Wagner
With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
to his rescue:
> Tue Dec 15 , 1998 (AP) U.N. weapons inspectors were denied access
> to a site for the second time since a recent promise of full cooperation,
> this time because of the Muslim Sabbath, a U.N. spokesman said.
> An UNSCOM chemical monitoring team on Friday was denied entry
> to a warehouse that had been inspected many times, Ewen Buchanan,
> spokesman for the U.N. Special Commission, said Monday. In deference
> to local religious sensitivities, inspectors have limited Friday missions,
> but maintain "the right to go any time, any place, 24 hours a day,"
> Buchanan said. "They should have let us in," he said.
Time to wag the dog again Bill !
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E II R can be calculated into 666 : 666 = 37 в 18, R is number 18
in the alphabet, and E, letter No 5, and the 2 ( from II )
can be calculated into 37 in the following way: 3=5-2 ; 7=5+2.
With kind regards Dr. Klaus Wagner
Multi-Media Apocalypse 2000 online: Our Future Revealed:
> http://home.t-online.de/home/072722649
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6672
Ancient biblical predictions about our present time and future.
Maria
(Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>
>With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
>over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
>to his rescue:
Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
BP
boo
http://therightconnection.hypermart.net
Klaus Wagner wrote:
> With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
> over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
> to his rescue:
>
R. Knauer
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:07 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
>(Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>>With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
>>over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
>>to his rescue:
>Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
Klaus has made some good points along the way - it's just difficult to
understand them if you are brainwashed by the pinko commie media.
Here's the latest in the Sadman Saga:
+++++
UN Weapons Monitors Evacuate Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A day after the chief U.N. weapons
inspector said Iraq had reneged on its promise of full cooperation,
U.N. weapons monitors were ordered to evacuate Baghdad today. The
United States and Britain have said military strikes remain an
option to force Iraq's compliance. British Foreign Secretary Robin
Cook said today airstrikes could come quickly and without warning
in the face of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's latest defiance of
weapons inspections. Three busloads of weapons monitors left the
U.N. compound in Baghdad this morning, followed by four white U.N.
cars carrying spare tires. Earlier, three trucks loaded with
luggage left the U.N. headquarters.
+++++
Bob Knauer
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather
startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much
less when there were no controls of any sort ... Half a century of
strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater
use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
--C. Greenwood, Firearms Control, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul 1972
Maria
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:47:34 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:07 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
>>(Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>
>>>With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
>>>over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
>>>to his rescue:
>
>>Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
>
>Klaus has made some good points along the way - it's just difficult to
>understand them if you are brainwashed by the pinko commie media.
I do understand what Klaus says; nothing to do with the media.
More to do with the fact that Klaus often refers to numerology to back
up his assertions and I don't believe in it. Ok?
John Hutton
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:07 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
> (Klaus Wagner) wrote:
> >
> >With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
> >over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
> >to his rescue:
> Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
Of course you *DO* realize that the film "Wag the Dog" was more about
the media manipulting stories for their own personal gain (remember the
main "villian" was a member of the press) than about presidential sex
scandels?? Also dont forget that the main thrust of the film was the media
concocting a "phony war" with no actual battles and trumped up issues...
Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that the
problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
*EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
bank...@my-dejanews.com
Best on that seen lately: ONE MORE WHORE AND WE GET GORE
---------------------------------
~ Lucy + football = CLINTON ~
---------------------------------
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Klaus Wagner
> Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
How many more military actions are "we" going to have
I wonder. This time will be different from previous times:
It will not make any sense to just throw a few bombs and
continue business as usual. This time the US will have to invade
Arab territory on an unprecedented scale, and the Clinton administration
seems to be blind for the possibility that they are going to get more than
bargained for. All this happens at a time when the carefully worked out balance
between Jews and Arabs is about to collapse and Turkey is at odds with
her neighbors too.
It looks very much as though the rulers of the Jewish Anglo-American bank
and business World Empire known as "International Community" or "Global Economy"
are about to bite off more than they can chew. Another major war in the Middle
East will be the 6th of the 7 disasters
predicted by the Biblical Book of Revelation in chapter 16, see:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6672/r16.htm
after the 5 previous ones have already happened.
And even without these predictions it seems likely the our current
Anglo-American World civilization will not survive an allout war against
Islam.
Klaus Wagner
> I do understand what Klaus says; nothing to do with the media.
> More to do with the fact that Klaus often refers to numerology to back
> up his assertions and I don't believe in it. Ok?
You seem not quite to understand my points.
Numerology is a set of theories which attributes mystical occult meanings
to numbers. My calculation to link the present "Queen" of England through
her initials "E II R" with the number 666 has nothing to do with this.
It is just one of dozens of signs predicted in the Bible to show us that issues
of our present time have appeared in visions to various prophets over
the centuries, and it is not even the most convincing of the arguments
which support this point.
R. Knauer
>I do understand what Klaus says; nothing to do with the media.
>More to do with the fact that Klaus often refers to numerology to back
>up his assertions and I don't believe in it. Ok?
I don't believe the numerology either.
David Kyle Roselip
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
> which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
> territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
> say, Israel?
And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
"Jordan."
The difference between Israel and those states which are named
above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
and every single person within your nation. We don't bomb Israel because
they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
increasingly dangerous region.
> The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
> principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose morality.
Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
the most recent UN-negotiated agreement. I just hope that this stops
Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
>
> God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
> their leaders make enemies for them.
I don't see any condemnation of Tony Blair and the Brittish for
their part in this. Another example of "selective morality?"
David Roselip
> Cyruz
John Hutton
> >. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
> Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
> US.
> Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
> Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
off the cuff reaction shall we ;). The *REALITY* is that last month the
US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
DIPLOMACY before hand. Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
obstucted UNSCOM again. Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
it is paying the price.
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
David Kyle Roselip
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.981216...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>,
> David Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> >
> > > There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
> > > which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
> > > territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is
> to
> > > say, Israel?
> >
> > And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
> > "Jordan."
> > The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> > above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> > form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> > surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> > and every single person within your nation. We don't bomb Israel because
> > they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> > increasingly dangerous region.
>
> And why is it that Israel has soo many enemies? Don't say it's Arab
> anti-semitism, and don't place the nazi mask over the Arab people - the reason
> is Israel is a construct placed in the heart of the region without the consent
> of its _native_ inhabitants.
Why not say that it is at least partially Arab anti-semitism? For
decades now the Arab world has formed international coalitions for the
express purpose of wiping Israel off the map. There has been continual
conflict over just who has exclusive rights to Jerusalem as well as the
very land that Israel was "re-founded" upon (for lack of a better term)
which has resulted in almost monthly attacks by Arab groups against
Israeli market places. It takes an awful lot of hate to seek out women
and children with a nail bomb.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I am by no means an expert in Israeli
history), however it seems to me that Israil has occupied that stretch of
land off and on for most of the last few millenia. The fact that the
Arabs claimed it as their own before the Brittish restored Israeli
statehood 50 years ago only underscores their opportunistic belligerance.
Of course there is always the age-old Jewish/Muslim conflict that
has spilled over into the likes of Louis Fharakkan and "Malcolm X" who
have led the "Nation of Islam" so far to the American political left with
their anti-semetic jargon, that even the Left uses language to denounce
them that is often reserved for their most ardent "Right-Wing Extremist"
detractors.
>
> > > The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
> > > principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose
> morality.
> >
> > Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
> > argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
> > Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
> > the most recent UN-negotiated agreement. I just hope that this stops
> > Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
> > meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
>
> That Iraq is a violent state, you'll find no opposition from me in regards to
> that. However, if we look at the entire region - you'll find Iraq is not the
> only nation with a history of abuses. Kurds are terrorized in Turkey, not a
> peep from Washington; political and religious (including Christians)
> dissidents in Saudi Arabia are squelched with swords and bullets, yet I
> haven't heard about any plans to bomb Saudi? Before 1991 when Iraq used
> chemical weapons on Iranians and on the Kurds, where were your noble legions
> of humanity?
In regards to Turkey, we needed them in order to gain an edge in
the Cold War. We stationed quite a few nuclear missiles there even before
the "Cuban Missile Crisis" during the Kennedy Administration. After the
development of ICBM technology we trusted the Soviets even less and were
even more desperate for an ally within conventional striking distance.
With the emergence of China as an aggressive nuclear power and the
increasing mistrust between the East and the West we haven't been able to
pick and choose our allies.
The Saudi ruling family is a lukewarm pro-western influence in the
Middle East which the U.S. cannnot afford to lose. Besides, they are a
steady supplier of oil and will allow us to establish millitary bases
on their soil. They're also hanging by a thread. The islamic
"hard-liners" are pressing the royals hard to eliminate Western influences
and, should we press too hard for human rights, we would probably
precipitate a rather bloody coup d'etat followed by the cessation of all
diplomatic relations with the Saudis as a whole.
As far as the Iraqi Kurds are concerned, most Americans had never
heard of them until after the media called attention to their plight in
the waning days of "Operation Desert Storm." No political action
committees, no political action.
I'm pretty sure that most American experts on international
conflict and terrorist operations were quite content to see Iran and Iraq
duke it out by any means possible. It even provided an avenue for the
Reagan Administration to financially suppport the Nicaraguan Sandanistas'
fight agains the Contras. Another unfortunate extention of the Cold War.
I know you probably think that I'm a heartless freak, but I don't
see any reason to sugar-coat the fact that millitary, economic and
political realities often yeild unfavorable outcomes. "The lesser of
several evils" has been the attitude of most world leaders over the course
of history. While I have very strong opionions as to what we should do, I
(like many others) rarely stop to think of what we can do. The depressing
reality is that we will most likely never take action against China
because they have nukes, North Korea because they are backed by China or
the Russina oligarchy because the IMF will blast us in the press and
succeed in doing so because the average American does not often realize
that critical analyzation of the information presented to you is an
essential part of being informed. Of course, thats what happens when you
spend billions of tax dollars on schools which teach more about condoms
and native folklore than on making sure that high school graduates can
read their diplomas. But I digress.
My point here is that, though we Americans may not be the
proverbial "men in white hats" that we've been made out to be since the
end of World War II, even though we may not even want to take a shot at
curing the world of all of its ills, we still have the sense to cheer and
defend our actions when we do get it right. No matter what the motives of
our Commander in Chief may be.
>
> And again, don't forget about Israel's stockpiles of weapons of
> mass-destruction which could potentially make the entire region uninhabitable
> for everyone.
However the Israelis are not likely to use them as long as the
United States can be counted upon to come to their aid. Politics being
such that it is, Israel may feel that it needs more domestic deterrence
in order to insulate itself from a hypothetical U.S. withdrawl of support.
>
> > >
> > > God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
> > > their leaders make enemies for them.
> >
> > I don't see any condemnation of Tony Blair and the Brittish for
> > their part in this. Another example of "selective morality?"
>
> Thank you for correcting me - shame on Blair and the British as well. May God
> have mercy on their souls in the next life.
Always eager to lend a hand.
David Roselip
>
> Cyruz
cy...@mailexcite.com
which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose morality.
God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
their leaders make enemies for them.
Cyruz
In article <36781b8e.0@calwebnnrp>,
John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> > Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
>
> Of course you *DO* realize that the film "Wag the Dog" was more about
> the media manipulting stories for their own personal gain (remember the
> main "villian" was a member of the press) than about presidential sex
> scandels?? Also dont forget that the main thrust of the film was the media
> concocting a "phony war" with no actual battles and trumped up issues...
>
> Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that
the
> problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
> decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>
> John Hutton
> por...@calweb.com
Maria
(Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:54:36 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) replied:
>
>> I do understand what Klaus says; nothing to do with the media.
>> More to do with the fact that Klaus often refers to numerology to back
>> up his assertions and I don't believe in it. Ok?
>
>You seem not quite to understand my points.
With respect, I think I do.
>Numerology is a set of theories which attributes mystical occult meanings
>to numbers.
I know that.
> My calculation to link the present "Queen" of England through
>her initials "E II R" with the number 666 has nothing to do with this.
Oh.
>It is just one of dozens of signs predicted in the Bible to show us that issues
>of our present time have appeared in visions to various prophets over
>the centuries, and it is not even the most convincing of the arguments
>which support this point.
Yes, well, I have a feeling that even if what is written in the bible
is no more than a fantasy of the writer, it could be in the interests
of certain people to ensure that those prophecies are, or appear to be
'fulfilled'.
But also, people have always tried to fit current events around past
predictions; it's comforting.
I just don't believe that what is happening is happening why you say
it is.
Maria
>. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
Maria
<dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
>> There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
>> which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
>> territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
>> say, Israel?
>
> And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
>"Jordan."
> The difference between Israel and those states which are named
>above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
>form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
>surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
>and every single person within your nation.
Odd. Haven't seen any Iraqi missiles (or anyone elses) raining down
on Tel Aviv for a long time.
I notice that Israel has claimed that this strike is nothing to do
with them, that they can and will take care of themselves.
> We don't bomb Israel because
>they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
>increasingly dangerous region.
Even more dangerous now eh?
>> The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
>> principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose morality.
>
> Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
>argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
>Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
>the most recent UN-negotiated agreement.
It's interesting that these days one doesn't have to even commit an
act of aggression to be the subject of a US air attack.
> I just hope that this stops
>Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
>meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
And what this has to do with you is...?
>>
>> God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
>> their leaders make enemies for them.
>
> I don't see any condemnation of Tony Blair and the Brittish for
>their part in this. Another example of "selective morality?"
Since it is 2.09 am, you might given them a chance.
a) Although there is a British presence in the Gulf, and it's possible
that they are using (again, since they don't have anything like it
themselves) our reccy aircraft, it's difficult to see what involvement
in this there actually is, in spite of Bliar talking up Britain's role
in this. There is certainly nothing like the alliance that existed
back in Desert Storm.
b) As a Briton, I would like to formally dissociate myself from this
action which I believe to be unwarranted, pointless and wrong.
For what it's worth.
Von Jaeger
>In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
> off the cuff reaction shall we ;). The *REALITY* is that last month the
> US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
> inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
> DIPLOMACY before hand. Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
> of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
> bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
> IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
>
> It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
> that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
> obstucted UNSCOM again. Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> it is paying the price.
>
> John Hutton
> por...@calweb.com
>
>
While part of me wants to give the alleged President the benefit of
the doubt, you have to admit, there is DOUBT!
That is why he should resign.
"Terrorism, more often than not,
comes from the quill of a pen
than from the barrel of a gun"
--Hunter--
Pixie
>In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:07 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
>> (Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >With his Middle East peace mission all but failed and impeachment looming
>> >over his head President Clinton can now appreciate Saddam Hussein coming
>> >to his rescue:
>
>> Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
>
>
> Of course you *DO* realize that the film "Wag the Dog" was more about
> the media manipulting stories for their own personal gain (remember the
> main "villian" was a member of the press) than about presidential sex
> scandels?? Also dont forget that the main thrust of the film was the media
> concocting a "phony war" with no actual battles and trumped up issues...
>
> Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that the
> problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
> decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>
You probably will, John, when the timing of the strikes is so amazingly
advantageous to Ole Slick. Do you doubt for a minute that he'd do anything..
use any ruse.. tell any lie... to try to save his worthless ass?
Maria
>In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 1998 12:43:58 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
>> >. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
>> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>
>> Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
>> US.
>
>> Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
>
>> Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
> Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
> off the cuff reaction shall we ;).
Don't be silly; this is Usenet.
>The *REALITY* is that last month the
> US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
> inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
> DIPLOMACY before hand.
Yup.
> Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
> of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
> bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
> IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
Really? That's nice.
I wonder why the UN were not allowed a chance to peruse it and discuss
it before this military action was taken?
I wonder why the US/UK is using a UN report as justification for
taking unilateral action against Iraq?
I wonder where, exactly, Richard Butlers interests lie? (Noting that
Ms. Albright was quick to point out that Butler is not American!)
> It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
> that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
> obstucted UNSCOM again.
Maybe he kept his word because it suited him. A few weeks ago he was
saying that we should not be too hasty and overreact when Blair
suggested that the US attack.
And lets face facts, as you are saying; if the President wanted to
strike because he wanted to keep his word, he didn't exactly have much
of a window did he?
Today, a vote for impeachment, saturday, Ramadan begins (and I heard
that the US were going to 'respect' that. Ho ho.
>Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> it is paying the price.
IMO we will all pay the price of the US/UK strikes.
cy...@mailexcite.com
David Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> > There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
> > which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
> > territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is
to
> > say, Israel?
>
> And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
> "Jordan."
> The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> increasingly dangerous region.
And why is it that Israel has soo many enemies? Don't say it's Arab
anti-semitism, and don't place the nazi mask over the Arab people - the reason
is Israel is a construct placed in the heart of the region without the consent
of its _native_ inhabitants.
> > The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
> > principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose
morality.
>
> Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
> argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
> Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
> the most recent UN-negotiated agreement. I just hope that this stops
> Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
> meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
That Iraq is a violent state, you'll find no opposition from me in regards to
that. However, if we look at the entire region - you'll find Iraq is not the
only nation with a history of abuses. Kurds are terrorized in Turkey, not a
peep from Washington; political and religious (including Christians)
dissidents in Saudi Arabia are squelched with swords and bullets, yet I
haven't heard about any plans to bomb Saudi? Before 1991 when Iraq used
chemical weapons on Iranians and on the Kurds, where were your noble legions
of humanity?
And again, don't forget about Israel's stockpiles of weapons of
mass-destruction which could potentially make the entire region uninhabitable
for everyone.
> >
> > God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
> > their leaders make enemies for them.
>
> I don't see any condemnation of Tony Blair and the Brittish for
> their part in this. Another example of "selective morality?"
Thank you for correcting me - shame on Blair and the British as well. May God
have mercy on their souls in the next life.
Cyruz
Cliff Morrison
> Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
Face the facts: People were killed to fit the primetime US tv schedules.
Face the facts: Israel won't do as Billy says so he has someone else bombed.
Face the facts: Iraqui lives equated to a blowjob off a slut in Washington.
Face the facts: Blair and Mandelson don't even have Clinton's invalid excuse.
Face the facts: Blair and Clinton are actually *worse* than Pinochet.
Face the facts: No "crimes against humanity" charge for Blair and Clinton!
Cliff Morrison
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981216...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> and every single person within your nation.
That is just hypocritical doublespeak. Would you say the same if Iraq
somehow managed to launch a pre-emptive strike against the USA or UK? No?
Thought not.
> We don't bomb Israel because
> they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> increasingly dangerous region.
Death to all all foreign xenophobes! Love us or die! Aye, quite.
> I just hope that this stops
> Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
> meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
No, be honest -- you don't give a fuck about that.
If a NATzO missile were to mincemeat the lot of them, that would be ok -
mere collateral damage, of no consequence.
> I don't see any condemnation of Tony Blair and the Brittish for
> their part in this. Another example of "selective morality?"
Blair, Mandelson and their self-righteous NuLab croneys are revelling in
their role as contract killers for the Pentagon. What's amazimng is how
can anyone listen to them applying terms like "crime against humanity",
"mass-murderer" or "racist" to others, without throwing up.
Cliff Morrison
> As a Briton, I would like to formally dissociate myself from this
> action which I believe to be unwarranted, pointless and wrong.
> For what it's worth.
I'm with you.
Cliff Morrison
their role as contract killers for the Pentagon. What's amazing is how
Gary Dale
> Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that the
> problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
I don't know: how many craven acts of aggression has the US in mind?
Pixie
>In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 1998 12:43:58 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
>> >. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
>> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>
>> Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
>> US.
>
>> Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
>
>> Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
> Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
> off the cuff reaction shall we ;). The *REALITY* is that last month the
> US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
> inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
> DIPLOMACY before hand. Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
> of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
> bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
> IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
>
> It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
> that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
> obstucted UNSCOM again. Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> it is paying the price.
>
> John Hutton
> por...@calweb.com
>
>
But John, didn't the fortuitous timing raise even a single question in your
mind?? Do you believe so blindly that you can't even question?
Michael23
>There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
>which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
>territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
>say, Israel?
Yep. If we had handled the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank
the way we handled Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait - namely, with
firm demands backed by the credible threat of force - the issue would
have been resolved long ago. This kind of blatant hypocrisy does
not go unnoticed in the Arab world.
> The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
>principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose morality.
>
>God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
>their leaders make enemies for them.
>
>Cyruz
>
>In article <36781b8e.0@calwebnnrp>,
> John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
>> > Sometimes Klaus, you make a good point. :)
>>
>> Of course you *DO* realize that the film "Wag the Dog" was more about
>> the media manipulting stories for their own personal gain (remember the
>> main "villian" was a member of the press) than about presidential sex
>> scandels?? Also dont forget that the main thrust of the film was the media
>> concocting a "phony war" with no actual battles and trumped up issues...
>>
>> Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that
>the
>> problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
>> decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
>> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>>
>> John Hutton
>> por...@calweb.com
Michael23
And as an American, may I second that motion? This idea of bulldozing
through the Iraqi people in order to get at Saddam is equivalent to setting
a house on fire in order to toast a single marshmallow. 500,000 dead
Iraqi children is an unacceptably high price to pay for one man's (still
living) life. The "cure" has become more dangerous than the original
illness, you might say.
Bob Valentine
>Yep. If we had handled the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank
>the way we handled Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait - namely, with
>firm demands backed by the credible threat of force - the issue would
>have been resolved long ago. This kind of blatant hypocrisy does
>not go unnoticed in the Arab world.
>
Nor does it go unnoticed in China, Indonesia, Chechnya, Kosovo, etc...
The New World Odor continues to smell of Petroleum.
Bob Valentine
T Bruce Tober
writes
>
>> Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that the
>> problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
>> decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
>> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>
As many as it can get away with and since it's the only super power left
and is the world's self proclaimed policeman (and we all know what
power-hungry maniacs most cops are) who's going to stop them?
Just like the school yard bully, the us is bigger and stronger and more
wealthy than any of the rest of the countries of the world and intends
to let everyone know it.
Of course tory blair and crew are kissing billie's arse over all this
and contributing to the war crimes, they know where their bread is
buttered.
tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
R. Knauer
>>It is just one of dozens of signs predicted in the Bible to show us that issues
>>of our present time have appeared in visions to various prophets over
>>the centuries, and it is not even the most convincing of the arguments
>>which support this point.
>Yes, well, I have a feeling that even if what is written in the bible
>is no more than a fantasy of the writer, it could be in the interests
>of certain people to ensure that those prophecies are, or appear to be
>'fulfilled'.
>But also, people have always tried to fit current events around past
>predictions; it's comforting.
>I just don't believe that what is happening is happening why you say
>it is.
You Bible prophesy fans might enjoy the books written by Grant
Jeffrey. He does a lot of numerical analysis, which although not quite
the same as numerology, is close to it. He is especially up on dates,
and has shown that all major Biblical events occur on predicted dates,
which also happen to be Hebrew feasts and holy days.
He is the first one I have seen to point out that a "year" in prophesy
is 360 days - that's the only way anything works out. Therefore the
last 70 years will actually be closer to 69 of our 365 day years.
Since some people take the beginning of that last "week of years" to
be when the nation of Israel was formed, which was 1948, they expect
Armageddon to occur in the year 2017. Based on that the 7 year
tribulation will begin 2010.
He is also into the "Bible Codes", which is really spooky stuff. I
have only read one of his books "Armageddon: Appointment With
Destiny", which I found entertaining.
His writing style is very academic - he doesn't try to dazzle you like
most other apocryphal writers. He was a financial planner before he
began his research into prophesy, which accounts for the analytic
style of his presentation.
You can see his works at: http://www.grantjeffrey.com/
Gary Dale
>through the Iraqi people in order to get at Saddam is equivalent to setting
>a house on fire in order to toast a single marshmallow.
Actually one official reportedly said it was one floppy disk they
were after.
R. Knauer
>God save the complacent and racist American people for standing by idle as
>their leaders make enemies for them.
Hey, dude - don't confuse us Texans with the rest of America. We here
in Texas deplore what is happening and are working as best as we can
to control the damage.
Ever hear of Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip? Ask him if he is
complacent.
Bob Knauer
"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Hermann Goering, 1936
Sunil
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, David Kyle Roselip wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 cy...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> > There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
> > which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
> > territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
> > say, Israel?
>
> And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
> "Jordan."
> The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> and every single person within your nation. We don't bomb Israel because
> they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> increasingly dangerous region.
AFAIA, it's the forces of the 51 states who are the bloodthirsty,
triggerhappy lot in the Gulf. And Israel is still in occupation of
other peoples' lands, while Iraq is not in occupation of a
*needle-point* of Kuwaiti or Iranian territory.
> > The problems in Iraq are indeed phony because there is no true
> > principle the US is abiding by, Clinton is abiding a pick-and-choose morality.
>
> Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
> argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
> Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
How ironic the name is, for uncle Tony promised us to ban hunting
foxes, yet has the gall to call Saddam a 'liar'.
> the most recent UN-negotiated agreement. I just hope that this stops
> Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
> meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
Britain killed a lot of Kurds too, when it was sovereign in the
region, in the 20s and 30s. Strange, but True, as they say.
Sunil
R. Knauer
>I notice that Israel has claimed that this strike is nothing to do
>with them,
LOL
>that they can and will take care of themselves.
ROTFL
Maria, you are getting to be quite the comedienne.
T Bruce Tober
<spam...@nospam.com> writes
>And as an American, may I second that motion? This idea of bulldozing
As do I as an expat yank. This whole 8 year fiasco has been a blot on
the history of all countries involved on the US side. For one thing,
rather than the inspection teams (ie CIA and MI6 and other spooks) why
not simply prohibit and take legal actions against any suppliers of the
makings of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (funny how we've
never seen any objective proof of their existence, not even of the
existance of the makings of such). Why is it the inspections are
supposed to go on and on and on for 8 years and the sanctions remain
even while the iraquis allow the inspections. just what are they getting
in return for allowing the inspections? Just when is it we in the west
are going to stop starving the Iraquis's civilian population? Just when
is some country going to say to the us and uk and un enough is enough
and mean it?
T Bruce Tober
<spam...@nospam.com> writes
>have been resolved long ago. This kind of blatant hypocrisy does
>not go unnoticed in the Arab world.
Or almost anywhere else.
Roger
Bob Valentine wrote:
> >
> >Yep. If we had handled the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank
> >the way we handled Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait - namely, with
> >firm demands backed by the credible threat of force - the issue would
> >have been resolved long ago. This kind of blatant hypocrisy does
> >not go unnoticed in the Arab world.
> >
>
> Nor does it go unnoticed in China, Indonesia, Chechnya, Kosovo, etc...
>
> The New World Odor continues to smell of Petroleum.
>
> Bob Valentine
Iwrite to complain of your comparison. Not that you aren't the best
amongst the Zionists who post here. You are, and apparently honest,
which I much appreciate.
For one thing, oil is less important than it once was. And the sources
of it are not all Arab. The common Zionist complaint that the world
is against them because of oil rings hollow in the present context.
It remains true that the United States mostly follows its interests. These
interests have oil right up there in importance. Yet we have given
Israel the most remarkable support against those supposed interests.
RLA
R. Knauer
Morrison) wrote:
>> As a Briton, I would like to formally dissociate myself from this
>> action which I believe to be unwarranted, pointless and wrong.
>> For what it's worth.
>I'm with you.
As a Texan, so am I. And so are all Texans of good faith.
If you don't believe me just listen to the political leadership from
Texas. I did, on the local news last night here in Houston, and they
think this action is completely abhorrent. They are not shocked by it
- it was highly predictable - they are just disgusted with it.
Call Tom DeLay's (R-TX) office in Sugar Land (a city just south of
Houston and home of Olympic Gold Medalist Tara Lapinski). He is
Majority Whip, the third ranking member in the House Of
Representatives. He is known as "The Hammer" because he tells it like
it is. Ask him what he thinks about all this, and he'll tell it just
like it is.
So will Bill Archer (R-TX) from my congressional district. Archer is
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most
powerful people in the House. He'll tell it like it is - I say his
comments on TV last night. And so will the other members of the Texas
delegation in congress.
Don't confuse Texas with the rest of America. Texas is gonna secede
from the Fascist Beast in Harlot Washington some day soon enough. If
you wonder why we have no other choice, this incident is one of the
reasons.
I am ashamed to be an American, but I am proud to be a Texan.
R. Knauer
>>. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
>> *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
>Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
>US.
>Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
>Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
Listen to Benjamin Disraeli:
"The world is governed by far different personages than what is
imagined by those not behind the scenes."
--Benjamin Disraeli
Now ask yourself if just one person, namely Bill Clinton, has enough
personal clout to order those air strikes. Ha!
If you look closely when he talks you can barely make out the wires
coming out of the top of his head. He admitted as much several months
ago when he said that he just takes orders from other people.
Come to think of it, he is beginning to look an awful lot like Howdy
Doody these days, what with boyish appearance and the plaintive pout
on his face, those doe eyes looking so innocent and all. Look closely
next time and see if you agree. Of course, he has had so many nose
jobs from acting like Pinnochio, that the end of his nose is scarred.
That you can see easily.
Phaedrus
>R. Knauer wrote in message <367902a8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>His writing style is very academic - he doesn't try to dazzle you like
>most other apocryphal writers. He was a financial planner before he
Obviously until he discovered that you could make more money
from pedaling god to gullible yanks.
R. Knauer
>That is why he should resign.
WHAT?! And leave the fate of the free world in the hands of that
congenital moron, Twinky Algore?
Nobody *really* wants BJ out of office, not even his arch enemies.
They just want to give him as hard a time as possible for the
remaining 2 years in order to contain him, and destroy the FarLeft in
the process.
If BJ resigns, we are stuck with a certified idiot as president for at
least 2 years and then our troubles begin anew because he could likely
be elected in 2000 for 4 more years. And then he could run again in
2004 because the term limitation is 10 years, not two terms.
The prospect of Twinky Algore as president for 10 straight years is a
nightmare of monstrous proportions - even apocryphal proportions.
R. Knauer
>I wonder why the UN were not allowed a chance to peruse it and discuss
>it before this military action was taken?
>I wonder why the US/UK is using a UN report as justification for
>taking unilateral action against Iraq?
>I wonder where, exactly, Richard Butlers interests lie? (Noting that
>Ms. Albright was quick to point out that Butler is not American!)
Why was it so important to inspect the Bath Party HQs at this
particular moment in time?
>Maybe he kept his word because it suited him. A few weeks ago he was
>saying that we should not be too hasty and overreact when Blair
>suggested that the US attack.
Tonie B.Liar is not the most powerful person on Earth. There is
protocol in such matters.
>And lets face facts, as you are saying; if the President wanted to
>strike because he wanted to keep his word, he didn't exactly have much
>of a window did he?
>Today, a vote for impeachment, saturday, Ramadan begins (and I heard
>that the US were going to 'respect' that. Ho ho.
The obvious strategy is to move the vote for impeachment into the next
year, when the next congress meets - with those newly elected
Demoncrats on board.
Of course, you could also ask why congress decided to delay the vote
until today, knowing that this was gonna happen. Hell, a 6th grader
could have predicted what happened. In fact, some in Texas actually
did.
>IMO we will all pay the price of the US/UK strikes.
The only thing that counts is the world price of oil. If it gets too
low, exploration and production will come to a halt, and then Sadman
will rule the Earth with his abundant cheap oil.
R. Knauer
>I don't know: how many craven acts of aggression has the US in mind?
Ask your Tonie B.Liar. He knows. Soon his ass is gonna be in tall
grass, and he will get BJ to help him out.
What countries are on your target list these days? Falklands again,
perhaps?
Matt McQueen
>have only read one of his books "Armageddon: Appointment With
>Destiny", which I found entertaining.
>
Interesting. Wasn't the author of the "Bible Codes" Michael Drosnin, who
made the following challenge:
"When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister
encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them." (Newsweek, Jun 9, 1997)
If you look at http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html , you'll see
messages from Moby Dick concerning the following figures:
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
President Rene Moawad
Soviet exile Leon Trotsky
The Reverend Martin Luther King
Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss
The assassin Sirhan Sirhan
John F. Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
Yitzhak Rabin
Princess Diana
--
Matt McQueen
Matt McQueen Software Ltd.
mmcq...@netcomuk.co.uk
gab...@hotmail.com
>There is another country in the middle east which houses chemical weapons,
>which has systematically ignored UN resolutions, and which has violated the
>territorial integrity of its neighbors, why not bomb this country, which is to
>say, Israel?
Most countries in the Mid East have chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq has actually used those, and not once.
Gary Dale
>On 17 Dec 1998 09:47:21 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>>I don't know: how many craven acts of aggression has the US in mind?
>Ask your Tonie B.Liar. He knows. Soon his ass is gonna be in tall
>grass, and he will get BJ to help him out.
>What countries are on your target list these days? Falklands again,
>perhaps?
I don't know but I think too little credit is given to Blair on
these issues - people blame America to let him off the hook.
Blair's a pioneer, with his own initiative and independence when
it comes to warmongering in the Gulf.
Marcus Houlden
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:18:11 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
> (Klaus Wagner) wrote:
> >Numerology is a set of theories which attributes mystical occult meanings
> >to numbers.
>
> I know that.
>
No point trying to reason with Klaus Wagner and his haunted calculator
(what make is it anyway?). It's quite amusing the number of people who
have made various calculations on the letters in his name and worked out
that they add up to 666 in some combination or another. This is the same
Klaus Wagner who was imprisoned for stealing drugs when he was a GP and
later deported for stalking Princess Di.
--
Marcus Houlden marcus_houlden (at) hotmail (dot) com
http://members.xoom.com/mhoulden PGP Key ID: 0xF1AEE198 or 0x11C532FF
Remove all the JUNK from my email address to reply
Happy Christmas!
David Kyle Roselip
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Sunil Wrote...
<snip>
> > > why not bomb this country, which is to
> > > say, Israel?
> >
> > And here I thought that you were going to say "Iran," "Syria" or
> > "Jordan."
> > The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> > above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> > form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> > surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> > and every single person within your nation. We don't bomb Israel because
> > they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> > increasingly dangerous region.
>
> AFAIA, it's the forces of the 51 states who are the bloodthirsty,
> triggerhappy lot in the Gulf. And Israel is still in occupation of
> other peoples' lands, while Iraq is not in occupation of a
> *needle-point* of Kuwaiti or Iranian territory.
If America was as bloodthirsty as you say, we would have blown the
entire Arab world away long ago. Probably after one of the terrorist
attacks on Kobar Towers, the World Trade Center or one of several
murderous bombings of allied Israeli civillians. Hussein has flouted
international law for seven years and we're just now doing something about
it. I suppose that you will now be criticizing Winston Churchill for not
waiting until Hitler had stolen the whole of Europe before forming a
coalition.
Now whose lands is Israel in occupation of? It seems to me that
what they now have (which has not been simply given to the Palestinians)
the occupy as the result of successful millitary action against hostile
powers. If the Arabs want to keep their lands they should quit picking
fights with those posessing superior firepower. Egypt learned that lesson
well.
> > Clinton is abiding "Save-my-skin" morality. You'll find no
> > argument from me in that respect. He should have conducted "Operation
> > Desert Fox" late last October when Hussein first thumbed his nose at
>
> How ironic the name is, for uncle Tony promised us to ban hunting
> foxes, yet has the gall to call Saddam a 'liar'.
It is even more strange that the operation was named after a Nazi
general. Somewhere in Washington a PR man finds himself unemployed...
David Kyle Roselip
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Cliff Morrison wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.981216...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
> Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> > The difference between Israel and those states which are named
> > above (Iraq included) is that Israel's agression has always been in the
> > form of preventative strikes; an operational neccecity when you are
> > surrounded by blodthirsty racists bent on exterminating you, your family
> > and every single person within your nation.
>
> That is just hypocritical doublespeak. Would you say the same if Iraq
> somehow managed to launch a pre-emptive strike against the USA or UK? No?
> Thought not.
If we had displayed a genocidal tendancy or two, calling for the
murder to every single Iraqi (which we have not done, by the way) then a
preemptive strike agains the U.S. or the U.K. would quite possibly be in
order. It wouldn't succeed, but he could try.
I am a rational human being. Assuming that I am somehow unable to
see both sides of the aisle with nothing more than a single post between
us betrays a certain reactionary zeal that often clouds thoughtful debate.
>
> > We don't bomb Israel because
> > they are acting for their very survival within a xenophobic and
> > increasingly dangerous region.
>
> Death to all all foreign xenophobes! Love us or die! Aye, quite.
When I wrote "...and increasingly dangerous region" I basically
meant "...a region in which the Israelis have been constantly attacked and
threatened with extermination." Israel could have very easily wiped out
the Lebanese in the "3-Days War" but only took enough territory to ensure
its security. Why do you suppose that is?
> > I just hope that this stops
> > Saddam from gassing Kurds in the north and running his sons-in-law through
> > meat grinders as punishment for political opposition.
>
> No, be honest -- you don't give a fuck about that.
> If a NATzO missile were to mincemeat the lot of them, that would be ok -
> mere collateral damage, of no consequence.
I have been nothing but honest. I simply realize that the world
is not perfect. In fact, its pretty rotten. We do the best we can and
try to do as little damage as possible to noncombatants. Tell me, though,
how do you take on a power-mad dictator in posession of chemical and
biological weapons who uses civillians as human shields? We've tried
"creative" means to oust him, but hes just too paranoid to let people near
enough to make him disappear.
David Roselip
John Hutton
> In article <3678718e.0@calwebnnrp>, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> > Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> Face the facts: People were killed to fit the primetime US tv schedules.
> Face the facts: Israel won't do as Billy says so he has someone else bombed.
> Face the facts: Iraqui lives equated to a blowjob off a slut in Washington.
> Face the facts: Blair and Mandelson don't even have Clinton's invalid excuse.
> Face the facts: Blair and Clinton are actually *worse* than Pinochet.
> Face the facts: No "crimes against humanity" charge for Blair and Clinton!
Again to quote myself earlier. "Seeeshhh". Must people restort to
hyperbole to make their arguments? What you call facts are of course your
opinions. "worse than Pinochet"???? Look, I'm not saying you have to
agree with the attacks. What I am/was saying is it is not a "Wag the Dog"
senerio. I mean have *ANY* of you actually watched the film??? There were
*NO* real attacks in the film. *NO ONE* died. And oh yah, the film was
about a bunck of slimy media tyoes willing to do anything to further
their carrers....
John Hutton
leftist in the box,
por...@calweb.com
PS: If you really think Blair and Clinton would kill lives to mearly
delay an impeachment vote, well I fell sorry for you that you are *SO*
rapped up in idealogical/partisan blinders that you no even *TRY* to
see if the other side had any valid points...
John Hutton
> > Weather you agree with the Pres on Iraq or not, you'd have to agree that the
> > problems in Iraq are ANYTHING but "phony" and streached back for almost a
> > decade now. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
> I don't know: how many craven acts of aggression has the US in mind?
Hmm, I'll guess I'll reply with sarcasm in kind......
"I dont know, how many more dictators are out there willing to flount
International Law and wage war on their neighbors??"
HINT: I wouldn't want to be Milosevic right about now.....
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
R. Knauer
>The New World Odor continues to smell of Petroleum.
That's "The New Weird Odor". And yes it reeks of oil. You can smell it
all the way over here in Houston, Texas, where I live.
But then look at the reason why: If Sadman is permitted to flood the
world oil market with cheap oil, exploration and production will come
to a standstill. Then he will have us by the gonads.
What would you do to prevent this from happening? Remember that he
walked out of the OPEC meeting and threatened to flood the world with
cheap oil just before he invaded Kuwait. He needed to control Kuwait
to make sure his strategy would work decisively. But he can still
cripple the world's oil and gas industry with his oil alone even if
Kuwait is not under his control.
John Hutton
> John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> >In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 16 Dec 1998 12:43:58 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> >> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
> >
> >> Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
> >> US.
> >
> >> Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
> >
> >> Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
> > Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
> > off the cuff reaction shall we ;). The *REALITY* is that last month the
> > US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
> > inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
> > DIPLOMACY before hand. Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
> > of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
> > bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
> > IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
> >
> > It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
> > that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
> > obstucted UNSCOM again. Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> > it is paying the price.
> >
> > John Hutton
> > por...@calweb.com
> >
> >
> But John, didn't the fortuitous timing raise even a single question in your
> mind?? Do you believe so blindly that you can't even question?
Sure I thought about it. For a few minutes. But again lets look at
*REALITY* (God don't us netizens hate that term :) ) again. If the attack
had occured last week, Clinton would have been accused of trying to
influence the Judicary Committe. If it had occured a month ago, he's
accused of influencing the election. And of course, if the attack occured
next month, hes accused of influencing the Senate Trial.
The one simple fact that people are *IGNORING* is that the report from
UNSCOM came in on Tuesday. We attacked on Wed. What I am more willing
to belive is that Saddam Hussein thought the US would be to preoccupied
to do anything against him. To quote Homer Simpson: "D'oh"
John Hutton
Yeah I'm a Liberal... wanna step outside
and make something out of it??
calweb.com
John Hutton
> On 16 Dec 1998 18:50:54 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> >In uk.politics.misc Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 16 Dec 1998 12:43:58 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >. Seeesshhhh are we going to see insipid "Wag the Dog" posts
> >> > *EVERY* time we have military action from now on??
> >
> >> Maybe so if you don't do something to end this ridiculous farce in the
> >> US.
> >
> >> Let's see; Iraq is struck; impending impeachment vote is suspended.
> >
> >> Of course, it's all just a coincidence. A damn convenient one.
> > Well, lets not let *REALITY* intrude in our God-given right to have
> > off the cuff reaction shall we ;). The *REALITY* is that last month the
> > US and UK said if there we're any more obstructions placed to the UN
> > inspection teams, the US and UK would attack WITH NO WARNING and NO
> > DIPLOMACY before hand. Well, lets not forget that YESTERDAY Mr Butler
> > of UNSCOM delivered a final report to the UN which detailed a whole
> > bunch of new restrictions that Saddam Husein had placed on the inspectors
> > IN VIOLATION of his own promise in Novemember.
> >
> > It seems to me that (at least in this country) conservatives are pissed
> > that the Pres KEPT HIS WORD when he said he would attack Iraq if it
> > obstucted UNSCOM again. Face the facts: Iraq defied UNSCOM and now
> > it is paying the price.
> >
> > John Hutton
> > por...@calweb.com
> >
> While part of me wants to give the alleged President the benefit of
> the doubt, you have to admit, there is DOUBT!
> That is why he should resign.
Ahh good one. Nice direct quote from DeLay (or Armey). Yeah the fact
that a person doesnt have ABSLOUTE confidence in the Pres means he
should resign. Hmm does this mean if we ever have a REPUBLICAN president
and I doubt his motives, he should resign.... I bet I know what your
answer is ;)
John Hutton
> "Terrorism, more often than not,
> comes from the quill of a pen
> than from the barrel of a gun"
> --Hunter--
R. Knauer
>For one thing, oil is less important than it once was.
I think that your major premise is fatally flawed. From my perch here
in Houston, Texas, I know your premise is completely wrong.
Oil maens sovereignty. Currency, once the measure of sovereingty, can
now be manipulated by the major industrial countries - witness the
latest round of IMF maneuvers.
But oil is a hard commodity, not just some number in a computer. If
you cannot produce enough of it for yourself, your sovereignty is in
trouble. The US will stop exploration and production if the world
price of oil drops too low, which is exactly what will happen if Iraq
is allowed to dump abundant cheap oil on the world market.
Without the revenue to pay for the astronomical cost for new
exploration and production of domestic oil (in the Gulf Of Mexico, for
example), America's oil industry will not be able to meet the 50% mark
that we now depend on for domestic production.
Not only will that be an economic disaster for America, it will be a
stategic disaster in terms of maintaining America's posture as the
world's only remaining superpower.
That is simply not acceptable.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>Obviously until he discovered that you could make more money
>from pedaling god to gullible yanks.
To each his own. Hugh Hefner made an even larger fortune peddling
cheap porn to wankers.
R. Knauer
<mmcq...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Interesting. Wasn't the author of the "Bible Codes" Michael Drosnin, who
>made the following challenge:
I am not a proponent of Bible Codes, mainly because I have not taken
the time to study the claims.
Jeffrey says that these codes only emerge in certain books of the New
Testament, and when they do they defy statistical probability. He says
he has had statisticians check it out. I have no idea if it is real or
not.
I would, however, suggest before you take a position, that you check
out the facts first. There have been a lot of weird things discovered
that were considered nonsense at the time of their discovery. Most
turn out to be like cold fusion, but every once in a while one of them
has far reaching significance.
For example Newton discovered his laws of motion while indulging in
alchemy, among other things. The Greeks and later the Scholatics based
their Law Of Causality on astrology.
R. Knauer
WHISTLE-BL0W INSPECT0R: IT'S 'WAG THE D0G'
By CHRISTOPHER FRANCESCANI
Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says U.S. officials
prodded inspection teams to return to Iraq last month to provoke a
crisis to justify bombing.
"What [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Richard Butler did last week with
the inspections was a set-up," Ritter told The Post yesterday. "This
was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing."
Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the
inspections resumed that "the two considerations on the horizon were
Ramadan [the monthlong Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and
impeachment.
"You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have
no choice," he said.
"If you start assessing what's happened since November 19 [when
inspectors resumed their work in Iraq], you have to wonder if the U.S.
isn't perverting a good cause."
Ritter's comments - and his reference to the movie about a president
who created a phony war to divert attention from his domestic problems
- came hours before U.S. military forces struck in the Persian Gulf,
destroying suspected biological and chemical weapons sites in Iraq. In
mid-November, U.S. and British forces were on the verge of massive
bombing attacks on Iraq. The attacks were called off at the last
minute after Saddam Hussein reversed Baghdad's Oct. 31 refusal to
cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
After Saddam capitulated, inspectors were rushed back in to resume
their duties.
"UNSCOM [the U.N. Special Commission] knew there were no weapons at
the sites they were sending their inspectors to. We've been doing this
for seven years. We know that when the inspectors leave, Iraq shuffles
up the deck, moves the weapons." "Why then did the U.S. urge these
inspectors to carry out immediate inspections?"
Ritter assailed Butler's report, released late Tuesday night, that
said Iraq was not complying with the inspections. That report was in
contrast with one released by the International Atomic Energy Agency
which said Iraq was complying.
Ritter insists Butler's report - while necessary - was politically
motivated.
"If you dig around, you'll find out why Richard Butler yesterday ran
to the phone four times. He was talking to his [U.S.] National
Security adviser. They were telling him to sharpen the language in his
report to justify the bombing."
Ritter quit the inspections team in August, saying the Clinton
administration and the United Nations had stymied the efforts of
inspectors to uncover Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He said
that before he quit, inspectors had acquired detailed information
about where weapons were hidden - but the Iraqis have since had time
to move them and probers will have to begin the process all over
again.
Yesterday, Ritter charged that the only way to achieve the objective
of disarming Iraq is to demand - under threat of a crippling,
large-scale military attack - that they not only turn over their
weapons, but detail for inspectors exactly how and where they diverted
the weaponry to avoid detection.
A limited air attack on Iraq will achieve very little, Ritter said,
though he said it would be in keeping with the Clinton
administration's latest policy of containment with Iraq. "No inspector
should go back until Iraq admits it has lied and details how they hid
their weapons.
"Instead, we send inspectors back in to continue the failed process of
inspections. There are still weapons in Iraq. There's no doubt about
that. "But we've been doing this since 1991 and its not working."
Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
Cliff Morrison
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
[re "Desert Fox"]
> It is even more strange that the operation was named after a Nazi
> general. Somewhere in Washington a PR man finds himself unemployed...
You could at least try to some of your history right
-- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
Cliff Morrison
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Tell me, though,
> how do you take on a power-mad dictator in posession of chemical and
> biological weapons who uses civillians as human shields? We've tried
> "creative" means to oust him, but hes just too paranoid to let people near
> enough to make him disappear.
Impeachment?
Except that would leave Gore in charge.
Same problem here with Blair, and he may well be
potentially worse than your Billy....
Cliff Morrison
> PS: If you really think Blair and Clinton would kill lives to mearly
> delay an impeachment vote,
Not just about impeachment, its also part of the bigger gameplan.
Yes I do think they would do that, and worse - especially Blair.
> well I fell sorry for you that you are *SO*
> rapped up in idealogical/partisan blinders that you no even *TRY* to
> see if the other side had any valid points...
I've thought a lot about it - and afaics they simply don't have any.
Cliff Morrison
Will Mandelson now call for Blair's arrest?
cy...@mailexcite.com
David Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong (I am by no means an expert in Israeli
> history), however it seems to me that Israil has occupied that stretch of
> land off and on for most of the last few millenia. The fact that the
> Arabs claimed it as their own before the Brittish restored Israeli
> statehood 50 years ago only underscores their opportunistic belligerance.
Over 2000 years of history have occurred since the writing of the Bible and
the age when Jews were a majority in Palestine. Palestine (which is what
Jewish-European colonists call "Israel") has been ruled successively by
Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, and Ottomans. Ottoman
rule ended after World War I when the region was taken by the British. The
British in turn, under pressure by Zionists, divided the region between the
Jews and Arabs, when the Jews deserved not a square centimeter of Palestinian
land.
Jewish people ceased being a majority population in Palestine after the
second Roman conquest (2000 years ago). After the Arab conquest the dominant
langauge in Palestine became Arabic (1300 years ago) - and little change in
demographics in Palestine occurred until the Jewish-Europeans began their
colonization earlier this century (starting en masse after the British
mandate c. 1919).
The Israeli claim to Palestine has little historical validity. Their argument
has as much validity as the Vatican has to the entirety of the former Papal
states. In fact their claim is perhaps weaker since the Jews who called for a
Jewish state in Palestine have genetic roots not in Palestine, but in the
Caucasus - they are the descendant of Khazar converts to Judaism. For more
info on this at http://www.khazaria.com/ - realizing the deperation of their
arguments, Zionists depend on sympathy (stemming from the holocaust) from the
powerful West in order to keep aide and support flowing eastward into Israel.
Cyruz
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
> International Law and wage war on their neighbors??"
>
> HINT: I wouldn't want to be Milosevic right about now.....<
Please don't put Milosevic in the same category as Saddam Hussein. THe
Serbs are protecting their soil from being taken over by Muslims.
Dave Crane
Morrison) wrote:
>Impeachment?
>Except that would leave Gore in charge.
>Same problem here with Blair, and he may well be
>potentially worse than your Billy....
Can we please get the US constitution straight? FYI, "impeachment" by
the House of Representatives is not synonomous with "remove from
office". Impeachment is an indictment. That's sortof like a censure
lobbed over the wall to the Senate and it gives the Senate the right
and a mandate to hold a trial of the president on the counts
presented.
Damned clever, these framers of the US Constitution, eh? They even
thought about the problem that Al Gore (any VP) is the presiding
officer of the Senate. In this one case, Al Gore steps down from that
job and is replaced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who
presides over the Senate for the duration of the trial.
But a Brit shouldn't feel badly about the confusion. I'll bet that a
poll of US citizens would show that about half of them think that
"impeachment" by the House of Representatives IS synonomous with
"removal from office". That's the only excuse I can imagine for the
screwy polls we have seen.
Bill Willis
>
> In article <36795f5e.0@calwebnnrp>, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
> > PS: If you really think Blair and Clinton would kill lives to mearly
> > delay an impeachment vote,
>
> Not just about impeachment, its also part of the bigger gameplan.
> Yes I do think they would do that, and worse - especially Blair.
Well it is exactly such extreme and unwarranted negative viewpoint that
leaves so much of your postings evermore lacking in credibility.
>
> > well I fell sorry for you that you are *SO*
> > rapped up in idealogical/partisan blinders that you no even *TRY* to
> > see if the other side had any valid points...
>
> I've thought a lot about it - and afaics they simply don't have any.
Well think again, I'm sure you still have a few functioning cells and if
you really give it a good effort well ...
Bill
David Kyle Roselip
On 17 Dec 1998, John Hutton wrote:
> Again to quote myself earlier. "Seeeshhh". Must people restort to
> hyperbole to make their arguments? What you call facts are of course your
> opinions. "worse than Pinochet"???? Look, I'm not saying you have to
> agree with the attacks. What I am/was saying is it is not a "Wag the Dog"
> senerio. I mean have *ANY* of you actually watched the film??? There were
> *NO* real attacks in the film. *NO ONE* died. And oh yah, the film was
> about a bunck of slimy media tyoes willing to do anything to further
> their carrers....
"Wag the Dog" was filled with "slymy media types willing to do
anything to further their careers" however it was the fictionalized
President's political defense team which sought out and employed these
media types, one of which had repeated bouts of conscience throughout the
film. The President's team served as the driving force behind the
deception.
Someone did, in fact die in the end. The Oscarless film producer
was murdered in order to cover up the farce. However the specifics of the
film do not neccicarily need to be mirrored in real life in order to make
the connection. The basic premise was that the U.S. President created a
crisis in order to avert political disaster on the eve of an important
occurrance (an upcoming election).
Here we have millitary action in the Gulf literally hours before
the vote on Clinton's impeachment. Last January, Clinton rescheduled his
"historic" diplomatic visit to the People's Republic of China in order to
coincide with the date on which the Paula Jones law suit was to begin.
Most freightening of all, on the very day that Monica Lewinskey was to
appear before the Grand Jury investigating Clinton's alleged perjury, the
President decides that the time is right to send $60 million worth of
tomahawk cruise missiles to the Sudan and Afghanistan. We were, of
course, assured even then that the cabinet, joint chiefs, the FBI and the
CIA had all warned the President that the "time to act was now!" However,
we learned only a few days later that the FBI was completely out of the
loop, half of the joint chiefs weren't even present and the Cabinet was'nt
up to speed. That basically left the CIA saying that "Well, we think that
Afghanistan may be harboring Bin-Ladin on one of these training camps he
runs and, oh yeah, a few years ago he was living in the Sudan." Just how
all of that translated into bombing an aspirin factory I can't imagine but
I'm sure that Bill had a good reason...
Don't get me wrong here. I think that Hussein deserves exactly
what hes getting and wouldn't shed a tear should the entirety of his
"Republican Guard" wake up to find themselves dead tomorrow. However the
time for suprise was October. Hussein knew what Butler's report was going
to say and that Clinton would be looking for an exuse to bolster public
support for his administration. He has had ample time to dispurse his
forces in response to such a threat and Clinton knows that. So you tell
me, why is Clinton just now taking the initiative?
David Kyle Roselip
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Cliff Morrison wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
> Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> [re "Desert Fox"]
> > It is even more strange that the operation was named after a Nazi
> > general. Somewhere in Washington a PR man finds himself unemployed...
>
> You could at least try to some of your history right
> -- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
Terribly sorry. Was I not thinking of the correct World War? Who
exactly did general Rommel fight for?
John Hutton
> On 17 Dec 1998, John Hutton wrote:
> > Again to quote myself earlier. "Seeeshhh". Must people restort to
> > hyperbole to make their arguments? What you call facts are of course your
> > opinions. "worse than Pinochet"???? Look, I'm not saying you have to
> > agree with the attacks. What I am/was saying is it is not a "Wag the Dog"
> > senerio. I mean have *ANY* of you actually watched the film??? There were
> > *NO* real attacks in the film. *NO ONE* died. And oh yah, the film was
(bunch of "Wag the Dog" stuff snipped)
me, why is Clinton just now taking the initiative?
Why now?? two reasons. One after the last negoitiated settleement (in
Nov) Richard Butler was sent into Iraq to test compliance. he said (on
Nov 15/16 I belive) it would take about a month to see if the Iraqi's
were really compling right now. Well a month later he delivered his report
on Dec 15. The next day we (as the US and the UK promised we would do)
attacked. Also there was the looming spectre of (sp) Ramadon.
The Pres and the PM didnt want to START a war during Ramadon. That left
a very narrow window of days to start the attack....
FWIW, in another post, I commented that the Pres would have come under
fire nomatter WHEN the attack was lanuched. Since the scandel has been
going on the whole year, ANY TIME he launched the attack, he would have
been blamed.
Another intersesting side note is this: The Secreatary of Defense is a
Republican (not sure if you UK readers know this) and I belive several
members of the Joint Cheifs of Staff (the heads of the various militaries)
are Republicans as well. The Sec of Defence PUBLICLLY said he is willing
to lay 30 years of personal service and intregity by saying that the
looming Impeachment debate HAD ABSOLUTLY NO INFLUENCE on the decision to
launch.
Belive me, the scandle-driven press is DESPRETLY trying to find a SINGLE
staffer of ethier the White House or the Military willing to say that
the decision to launch now was influnced by the Impeachment. They havent
been able to find one person to say that (and remember that the military
doesnt exactly like Clinton that much).
To sum up i would say that, "Yes Virginia, coincedinces do happen."
Unless you belive in "Secret Bavarian Masters" :)
John Hutton,
old-school lefitst in the box
por...@calweb.com
John Hutton
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Cliff Morrison wrote:
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
> > Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [re "Desert Fox"]
> > > It is even more strange that the operation was named after a Nazi
> > > general. Somewhere in Washington a PR man finds himself unemployed...
> >
> > You could at least try to some of your history right
> > -- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
> Terribly sorry. Was I not thinking of the correct World War? Who
> exactly did general Rommel fight for?
Not all german soldiers were Nazis. Supports of Hitler, yes (for military
reasons). But Nazis?? No. Qucik history lesson, when Hitler came to power
he left a great number of military officers in place. Heck this is one
reason he *WAS* able to stay in power. Dont forget that after Hitler
started to go (more) cookoo over militray plans, several officers *DID* try
to kill him...
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
Cliff Morrison
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Cliff Morrison wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.3.96.981217...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David
> > Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [re "Desert Fox"]
> > > It is even more strange that the operation was named after a Nazi
> > > general. Somewhere in Washington a PR man finds himself unemployed...
> >
> > You could at least try to some of your history right
> > -- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
>
> Terribly sorry. Was I not thinking of the correct World War? Who
> exactly did general Rommel fight for?
So you are claiming that all German soldiers were Nazis?
Cliff Morrison
> Cliff Morrison wrote:
> >
> > In article <36795f5e.0@calwebnnrp>, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > PS: If you really think Blair and Clinton would kill lives to mearly
> > > delay an impeachment vote,
> >
> > Not just about impeachment, its also part of the bigger gameplan.
> > Yes I do think they would do that, and worse - especially Blair.
>
> Well it is exactly such extreme and unwarranted negative viewpoint that
> leaves so much of your postings evermore lacking in credibility.
Bill, just what the heck would that pair of unprincipled megalomanic
psychos have to do to make you question the adulatory image you have of
them?
> > > well I fell sorry for you that you are *SO*
> > > rapped up in idealogical/partisan blinders that you no even *TRY* to
> > > see if the other side had any valid points...
> >
> > I've thought a lot about it - and afaics they simply don't have any.
>
> Well think again, I'm sure you still have a few functioning cells and if
> you really give it a good effort well ...
Thought again -- and afaics they have even less than I reckoned before.
Roger
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Except that Israel has a lot to learn from the Serbs.
Bill Willis
>
> In article <367993...@bcpl.lib.md.us>, wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
> > Cliff Morrison wrote:
> > >
> > > Not just about impeachment, its also part of the bigger gameplan.
> > > Yes I do think they would do that, and worse - especially Blair.
> >
> > Well it is exactly such extreme and unwarranted negative viewpoint that
> > leaves so much of your postings evermore lacking in credibility.
>
> Bill, just what the heck would that pair of unprincipled megalomanic
> psychos have to do to make you question the adulatory image you have
of them?
I by no means have an "adulatory" image of either Blair or Clinton. As
for Clinton, I don't like him, I think he is a phoney and I wish he
would resign. While I agree he is in many ways unprincipled, he (or
Blair) are by no means megalomaniac or fundamentally evil.
As for Blair, I am beginning to have my doubts as to his commitment to
greater democracy for Britain and he is seeming every day to be more and
more just another run of the mill politician.
Still I don't believe either of these individuals would bomb and kill
innocent people just to advance their own political causes. I do think
Saddam would and that is why I feel it is important that he be oppossed.
Whether you support the present bombing or not really comes down to two
questions IMV:
(1) Do you believe that Saddam left unopposed will develop weapons of
mass destruction (nuclear biological) that can threaten his neighbors
especially Israel and Kuwait?
(2) Do you believe that the US and Britain have the "right" to take
military action against Iraq now to prevent greater problems in the
future?
For me the answer to both questions is yes. Of course it is possible
that I am being mislead but I don't think so.
Bill
Gary Dale
>"I dont know, how many more dictators are out there willing to flount
>International Law and wage war on their neighbors??"
You jerk, Iraq isn't under attack for attacking any of it's neighbours, and
the only law violated is the law of the jungle. If Iraq attacked the US or
Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction' then an attack
on Iraq could be justified. The truth is the inverse of that: the US and
Britain's weapons of mass destruction are being used against defenceless
Iraq - bombs and sanctions all to uncover some crafitly hidden floppy-disk
with Saddam's secret conspiracy for world domination.
It's a vein hope that Iraq did have real high-tech weapons of mass destruction
- because then there would be no way the US and Britain would dare attack it.
I liked the way Clinton had to explain what 'UNSCOM' was in his speech -
the American people apparently don't have a clue about what's going on.
Maybe get back to reading DC Comics where Clinton plays Superman saving
the world. That's the propaganda version Clinton presented to the US people,
like he was talking to a bunch of 5 year olds. It's the infantile, gullible,
ignorant and Lewinsky-wannabes like yourself this drivel is aimed at.
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
> the only law violated is the law of the jungle. If Iraq attacked the US or
> Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction' then an attack
> on Iraq could be justified. <
You don't understand. The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
completely. Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
because they jeopardize their own people.
T Bruce Tober
100...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, David Kyle Roselip <dros...@gladstone.uo
regon.edu> writes
>
>
>> You could at least try to some of your history right
>> -- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
>
> Terribly sorry. Was I not thinking of the correct World War? Who
>exactly did general Rommel fight for?
As the man said, perhaps you need to read some history:
Erwin Rommel, 1891-1944, German field marshal,
known as the DESERT FOX
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/11115.html>
and regarded as one of the most brilliant generals of
WORLD WAR II
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/14007.html>
He commanded the Afrika Korps in the North African campaigns (1941-43).
His string of victories was broken by the British at EL ALEMAIN (1942).
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/00249.html>
In 1944 he took part in the attempt on Hitler's life
and was forced to take poison when the plot failed.
>
tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
R. Knauer
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>While I agree he is in many ways unprincipled, he (or
>Blair) are by no means megalomaniac or fundamentally evil.
As one politician said when confronted with the question why he had
such bad esteem for BJ Clinton: "You haven't been here in Washington
all this time. I have."
I am sure the same holds true for Tonie B. Liar too.
Bob Knauer
"In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from
the bottom up rather than the top down... but an end run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get
us to world order faster than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
-- Richard N. Gardner
R. Knauer
> Not all german soldiers were Nazis.
That is correct. In fact some of Hitler's best people in his military
command were Jews.
R. Knauer
The disclosures of Major Scott Ritter that the Clinton Administration
manipulated the report of UN Arms Inspector Richard Butler "to
generate a conflict that would justify a bombing" prove conclusively
that President Clinton ordered a military strike as a means of
pre-empting an impeachment vote, declares William Norman Grigg,
Associate Director of the National Impeach Clinton A.C.T.I.O.N.
Committee, which launched its impeachment drive in November 1997.
"Vladimir Lenin was fond of saying "war is the continuation of
politics by other means", observes Grigg. "For Bill Clinton, war is
the continuation of spin control by other means, and his willingness
to shed blood as a delaying tactic illustrates beyond contradiction
his utter unsuitability for the office he holds."
Major Ritter, who resigned from the UN arms inspection team in
Iraq last August to protest the Clinton Administration's appeasement
of Saddam, told the New York Post shortly before bombing began on
December 16th that Butler's report was politically motivated.
According to Ritter, in the hours before the report was released
Butler made repeated calls to Clinton Administration officials, who
"were telling him to sharpen the language in his report to justify the
bombing." A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency,
by way of contrast, certified that Iraq was complying with UN
inspection demands. "You have no choice but to interpret this as `Wag
the Dog,'" concluded Major Ritter. "You have no choice."
A similar view was expressed by Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-MS), who declared: "I cannot support this military action in
the Persian Gulf at this time" since "Both the timing and the policy
are subject to question." Jim Hoagland of the liberal Washington Post
criticized the President as well, observing that "Clinton has now
injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy. The
military campaign launched under these circumstances is a foreign
policy blunder of major proportions." However, as Grigg observes,
"This was not blunder; it was a premeditated crime against the
Constitution."
Mounting the attack without congressional authorization "is a
usurpation of power that should be regarded as another impeachable
offense," contends Grigg, citing James Madison's statement that the
Constitution "vested the question of war in the Legislature." When
asked about legal authority for the attack, State Department Spokesman
James Rubin cited United Nations Resolution 687, which was adopted in
February 1991. "By claiming `authorization' from the UN, Bill Clinton
has by-passed our Constitution and undermined our sovereignty in
order to stage his little distraction," Grigg continues.
In his address to the nation on December 16th , Clinton
justified the timing of the attack by professing a reluctance to
commence bombing during "the Muslim holy month of Ramadan [which]
begins this weekend." However, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger
stated that "There's no artificial deadline for this action," and
Defense Secretary William Cohen added that he would not "set
any timeframe" for the operation: "We intend to carry out the mission,
[however] long it must take." Although Cohen did not admit as much,
Grigg declares, "That `mission' is to save Bill Clinton's presidency,
not to protect our national interests."
It's also important to remember that Saddam's arsenal has been
built with the valuable assistance of the West, including the Clinton
Administration," Grigg continues. He points out that Clinton has
permitted Russia to provide technical and financial support for
Saddam's chemical and bio-weapons projects. Furthermore, "When Saddam
moved to liquidate his domestic opposition in 1996, he met with no
opposition from Bill Clinton," Grigg recalls.
Speaking with reference to Saddam Hussein, James Rubin told
reporters after the attack that "There is no end in sight for this
pattern of obfuscation, obstruction and outright violation."
"These words can be applied with equal accuracy to Bill
Clinton," observes Grigg. "Hussein is a despot and a mass murderer,
but it is Bill Clinton who is presently killing Iraqis and endangering
American lives both at home and abroad, purely in the interests of
political self-preservation. He is manifestly unfit to be President,
and Congress must act to remove him immediately."
---------------------------------
Action recommendations:
(1) Use this news release as a basis of a letter-to-the-editor to your
local newspaper, or for radio talk show talking points.
(2) Tell your congressman to vote YES on impeachment and send the
message that no president is above the law!
Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121
Email your congressman: http://www.impeachment.org/
To view your congressman's website for further contact information go
to: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Willis
If Iraq attacked the US or
> Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction'
Why do you say fictional?
> then an attack on Iraq could be justified.
Why should the US or Britain wait and allow Iraq to develop into a
serious threat to either or their allies? Perhaps a lesson has been
learned from the 1930's when Hitler was allowed to rearm Germany despite
international prohibitions. Perhaps if Britain, France (well forget
France) and the US stood firm against Hitler and the rearming of Germany
in the 30s things wouldn't have been so desperate in the 40's. Oh I
know, it's absurd to equate the two situations. still ...
> I liked the way Clinton had to explain what 'UNSCOM' was in his speech -
> the American people apparently don't have a clue about what's going on.
> Maybe get back to reading DC Comics where Clinton plays Superman saving
> the world. That's the propaganda version Clinton presented to the US people,
> like he was talking to a bunch of 5 year olds. It's the infantile, gullible,
> ignorant and Lewinsky-wannabes like yourself this drivel is aimed at.
Oh well, we are not all sophisticates like yourself Gary. What I would
like to know is where you get your information. Obviously you don't put
any store into what Clinton says or the British government says or
UNSCOM says. I might add you put no store in what successive American
or British governments have had to say regarding this matter.
Stan Engel
R. Knauer wrote in message <367a48e6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On 17 Dec 1998 19:59:06 +0800, John Hutton <por...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
>> Not all german soldiers were Nazis.
>
>That is correct. In fact some of Hitler's best people in his military
>command were Jews.
>
>Bob Knauer
In fact Bob Knauer is full of shit. Immediately upon Hitler's being named
Chancellor, anti-Jewish actions began. The Nazis did not murder them at once
but they immediately started issuing threats against them and the Jews were
quickly deprived of their livelihoods. The WW2 mass murders were exactly
what the Nazis warned would happen.
As to the remark "Not all German soldiers were Nazis", that's true to an
extent. German Army personnel were in fact prohibited from FORMALLY being
NSDAP members until after July 20, 1944. This did not mean that they were
opposed to Nazism. Far from it. Wilhelm Keitel never joined the party but he
freely admitted that he was an adherent to its views.
Rommel participated to some extent with the plot against Hitler in 1944.
Prior to that, he was considered a Hitler supporter. Some long time Nazis
also were in on the plot. One was Count Wolf von Helldorf, SA leader and
Berlin Police chief in 1944. Both Helldorf and Rommel supported Hitler while
he was winning but changed only when the war went badly.
As to Bob Knauer's bullshit about "In fact some of Hitler's best people in
his militarycommand were Jews", Jews were formally excluded from the
Reichswehr in 1934 and afterwards (in WW2) murdered en masse. A few German
soldiers had a Jewish grandparent or two. *All* German soldiers had "Aryan"
ancestors.
Whatever the degree of Jewish "blood" some German soldiers possessed, none
considered themselves Jews and neither did the German state. Field Marshal
Erhard Milch was accused of having a Jewish father and an "Aryan" and maybe
he did (maybe not) but a similar allegation was made against A. Hitler. Not
one Jew was an adviser to Hitler, Knauer's idiocy notwithstanding.
Any futher replies from me on this subject will be posted solely in
talk.politics.mideast news group.
Gary Dale
cm>Bill, just what the heck would that pair of unprincipled megalomanic
cm>psychos have to do to make you question the adulatory image you have of
cm>them?
Cliff, don't waste too much time on Bill, he is to Clinton what
12 year old girls are to DiCaprio. A 24-carot Lewinsky-wannabe...
Klaus Wagner
(Cliff Morrison) wrote:
> Face the facts: No "crimes against humanity" charge for Blair and Clinton!
That remains to be seen.
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E II R can be calculated into 666 : 666 = 37 в 18, R is number 18
in the alphabet, and E, letter No 5, and the 2 ( from II )
can be calculated into 37 in the following way: 3=5-2 ; 7=5+2.
With kind regards Dr. Klaus Wagner
Multi-Media Apocalypse 2000 online: Our Future Revealed:
> http://home.t-online.de/home/072722649
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6672
Ancient biblical predictions about our present time and future.
Cliff Morrison
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > You jerk, Iraq isn't under attack for attacking any of it's neighbours, and
> > the only law violated is the law of the jungle. If Iraq attacked the US or
> > Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction' then an attack
> > on Iraq could be justified. <
>
> You don't understand. The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
Oh, right...
So - alleging that there are vast stockpiles of chemical, biological (and
maybe nuclear) weapons in Iraq, the US and UK have set out to protect the
bulk of the Iraqui population by... errr... detonating all the weapons of
mass destruction they claim are there.
And so as not to offend their Moslem sensibilities, they are bombing early
for Ramadan.
Just as well Blair and Clinton friendly towards the Iraquis, innit?
> If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
"If" ????
So you support all this blitzing despite having to say "if"?
What "if" not? -- "Whoops sorry we all make mistakes!" Jeez.
> state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
> launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
> completely.
You mean quickly instead of the present slow way?
And does this mean Blair and Clinton have now taken to launching
pre-emptive strikes on behalf of other countries?
> Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
> because they jeopardize their own people.
Ah, how sweet. It's all for their own good.
.... Or did you mean the demented duo?
Richard Caley
j> The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
`the bulk of the Iraqui people' is, of course, a euphamism for `one
fat Iraqi with a silly moustache'.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
>
> Gary Dale wrote:
>
> If Iraq attacked the US or
> > Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction'
>
>
>
> serious threat to either or their allies? Perhaps a lesson has been
> learned from the 1930's when Hitler was allowed to rearm Germany despite
> international prohibitions. Perhaps if Britain, France (well forget
> France)<
Primarily France which in 1934 could have handily stopped his
reoccupation of the Rhineland and cut Hitler's regime short. But the
leftists and those who feared a repeat of WWI paralyzed the French
nation until it was too late.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>You don't understand. The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
>If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
>state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
>launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
>completely. Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
>because they jeopardize their own people.
I wish you were correct - the thought of innocent Iraqi people having
to suffer needlessly is abhorrent.
But the simple reality is that Iraq is all about oil. The free world
cannot permit Sadman to dump abundant cheap oil on the world market,
as he openly threatened to do just before he invaded Kuwait - thereby
shutting down needed new exploration and production.
If we are forced to shut down new E&P, we become totally dependent on
Sadman's oil, which means we have given up our sovereignty. That is
even more abhorrent, since more than just the Iraqi people will suffer
the consequences.
The Gulf War was about oil, the UN "weapons inspections" were about
oil and these deplorable bombings are about oil too. If we wanted to
prevent Iraq from making "weapons of mass destruction" we would simply
embargo all transhipments of the means to produce them.
Quite the contrary, those materials were allowed to go to Iraq so
there would be an excuse to keep Iraq under the thumb - to prevent it
from dumping abundant cheap oil on the world market.
Do you have a better way to guarantee that Iraq won't dump oil - one
that can be executed in the real world? Unfortunately, I think not.
Bob Knauer
R. Knauer
<thori...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>That is correct. In fact some of Hitler's best people in his military
>>command were Jews.
>In fact Bob Knauer is full of shit.
No, it is you who are full of shit.
Too bad you stopped studying history in the 6th grade, just about the
time you found out that you didn't have to bother to think anymore if
all you did was mouth the politically correct mantras fed to you by
your teachers.
Go read some true history for a change. Hitler himself was a Jew.
R. Knauer
(Klaus Wagner) wrote:
>> Face the facts: No "crimes against humanity" charge for Blair and Clinton!
>That remains to be seen.
Don't count on it. Clinton will not be removed from office by the
Senate. But if he would be, Twinky Algore would just pardon him.
Richard Caley
bw> Why should the US or Britain wait and allow Iraq to develop into a
bw> serious threat to either or their allies?
If it's OK for the USA to attack Iraq as a potential threat, it's OK
for Iraq to attack the USA as a potential threat.
Would that be OK by you?
I mean, the USA _has_ weapons of mass destruction, and has used them
in the past. It's run by a serial liar. Has a history of attacking
it's neighbours.
JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
> >If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
> >state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
> >launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
> >completely. Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
> >because they jeopardize their own people.
>
> I wish you were correct - the thought of innocent Iraqi people having
> to suffer needlessly is abhorrent.
> But the simple reality is that Iraq is all about oil. The free world
> cannot permit Sadman to dump abundant cheap oil on the world market,
> as he openly threatened to do just before he invaded Kuwait - thereby
> shutting down needed new exploration and production.<
Why? Are you saying that Iraq is being bombed to protect the profits of
Mobile and Exxon (which are now one company)? I don't buy it. If Iraq
were to hit Israel with chemical and biological weapons, it would spark
a total war in the area which could destroy all of the Persian gulf's
oilfields. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, enough to wipe out the entire
region. Now if crazy, Hitler-like Saddam were to go down and with his
last breath take a last shot at Israel, which is his glorious dream, it
would simply cause that kind of Israeli total response because Israel is
also sworn to take all of its enemies down with her. So, the US has
decided finally to take Iraq down now before it is too late, and to
serve as an example to Iran and the other ME states. It is a correct
decision.
> If we are forced to shut down new E&P, we become totally dependent on
> Sadman's oil, which means we have given up our sovereignty. That is
> even more abhorrent, since more than just the Iraqi people will suffer
> the consequences.<
THat's not true. There is so much oil in West Africa, Central Asia and
other places, and while Asia is in its depression, it'll take another
5-10 years at least for it to be worthwhile exploring again in any case.
So I'm sorry for jobs in the oil industry being laid off for now, but it
is ridiculous to beleive this attack on Iraq is to save the profits and
jobs of the oil industry. Maybe that's the view from Texas but it isn't
reality.
> The Gulf War was about oil, the UN "weapons inspections" were about
> oil and these deplorable bombings are about oil too. If we wanted to
> prevent Iraq from making "weapons of mass destruction" we would simply
> embargo all transhipments of the means to produce them.<
That is impossible to do. Too many companies in too many countries,
such as Italy, France, Russia, CHina, GErmany, UK, you name it, have the
technical knowhow to set up his nuclear and biological plants. You can't
control illegal drugs and you can't fully control people selling a
madman with billions to spend from getting his nuclear "fix" if he wants
it badly enough. He has to be taken down, period. He has to be either
put in jail or out of his misery. No other way.
> Quite the contrary, those materials were allowed to go to Iraq so
> there would be an excuse to keep Iraq under the thumb - to prevent it
> from dumping abundant cheap oil on the world market.
> Do you have a better way to guarantee that Iraq won't dump oil - one
> that can be executed in the real world? Unfortunately, I think not.
>
> Bob Knauer<
You've got this Texas view of "cheap oil" as being a threat to US oil
company profits and jobs in the oil industry. It is nonsense. There are
layoffs in many industries due to many things. Cheap energy is usually
considered a blessing, although I personally don't consider the masses
of road hogging, murderous SUV's and pickups to be a national blessing.
Still, this situation is to end crazy dictators from getting and using
weapons of mass destruction. That is what this is about.
Bill Willis
>
> In article <367A4F...@bcpl.lib.md.us>, Bill Willis (bw) writes:
>
> bw> Why should the US or Britain wait and allow Iraq to develop into a
> bw> serious threat to either or their allies?
>
> If it's OK for the USA to attack Iraq as a potential threat, it's OK
> for Iraq to attack the USA as a potential threat.
>
> Would that be OK by you?
Your argument is shallow and simplistic to the extreme. The USA and
Iraq are not equivalents. It simply does not follow that what is right
for the United States is equally right for Iraq.
I will say this, if it were possible for some outside force to rid the
US of its weapons of mass destruction without at the same time causing
the deployment of these weapons, perhaps the world would be better off.
I say perhaps because of course the cure could well be worse than the
disease and such a force would probably pose far more danger to the
world than does the US.
>
> I mean, the USA _has_ weapons of mass destruction, and has used them
> in the past.
> It's run by a serial liar.
Yes, and so is Iraq run by a serial liar and so has Iraq used its
weapons of mass destruction in the past. The difference is that the US
preseident is accountable for his actions and lies. I refer you to
todays deliberations in the US Congress.
Has a history of attacking
> it's neighbours.
No more so than many other countries.
Maria
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>As for Blair, I am beginning to have my doubts as to his commitment to
>greater democracy for Britain and he is seeming every day to be more and
>more just another run of the mill politician.
He's worse than that.
>(1) Do you believe that Saddam left unopposed will develop weapons of
>mass destruction (nuclear biological) that can threaten his neighbors
>especially Israel and Kuwait?
Possibly.
>
>(2) Do you believe that the US and Britain have the "right" to take
>military action against Iraq now to prevent greater problems in the
>future?
No.
Maria
wrote:
>> You jerk, Iraq isn't under attack for attacking any of it's neighbours, and
>> the only law violated is the law of the jungle. If Iraq attacked the US or
>> Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction' then an attack
>> on Iraq could be justified. <
>
>You don't understand. The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
How?
>If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
>state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
>launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
>completely. Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
>because they jeopardize their own people.
So Iraq should not have nukes because it might make Israel nuke them?
That's a new one.
T Bruce Tober
ce.worldnet.att.net writes
>> You jerk, Iraq isn't under attack for attacking any of it's neighbours, and
>> the only law violated is the law of the jungle. If Iraq attacked the US or
>> Britain with these fictional 'weapons of mass destruction' then an attack
>> on Iraq could be justified. <
>
>You don't understand. The US is protecting the bulk of the Iraqi people.
Yeah, right, the same way the GIs destroyed villages in Nam in order to
save them.
>If Saddam has those biological or chemical weapons, and if he were in a
That's a very big if. There's been absolutely no objective confirmation
that I'm aware of. If you are I'd be interested in citations to such.
And more over, why are we not pursuing the slugs who sold saddam this
stuff, if such really exists? It wouldn't be because the us and uk were
amongst the main sellers could it? No, of course not.
>state of rage, or perhaps dying, and decided in his dying breath to
>launch at Israel, the Israelis would respond by wiping out Iraq
>completely.
Fine, in that case it MIGHT be justified. In this case it's not. It's
war crimes, it's crimes against humanity. And someday the real
international community will get its act together enough to prosecute
the crimes.
>Crazy Hitler-types must not have access to such weapons
>because they jeopardize their own people.
Well then impeach billie for this action, rather than pursuing that
laffable sex scandal shit.
B Wood
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, David Kyle Roselip wrote:
>> You could at least try to some of your history right
>> -- General Rommel *wasn't* a Nazi.
>
> Terribly sorry. Was I not thinking of the correct World War?
> Who exactly did general Rommel fight for?
I think the point the poster is making is that Rommmel was a loyalist of
the Weimar republic, much like the commander of the Gaff Spree (sp?).
When the commander scuttled his ship, he chose to wrap himself in the
German flag, not the Nazi one.
Interesting aside. While I *read* that he wrapped himself in the German
flag, a recent doucmetary on the history channel showed a WWII press clip
of the incident, and the flag was actually Nazi. I'm wondering which
version of events is correct -- the historical text or the clip? (it is
possible that the Nazi propaganda machine recovered his body, removed the
German flag and drapped a Nazi flag over the remains instead, and then
filmed it all).
Anybody out there know for sure?
Fenrisulven