A very tough question for the anti war ppl

0 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht

Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 03:35:1628.01.03
an
Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
answer without changing the subject:


"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"


To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:

1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
and Israelis.

3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.

4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting
uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
Again, -almost entirely civilian-.

5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
children.

6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.

7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
offenses.

8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.

9/ Systematic use of torture.

10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
withholding food and medicine from his own people.


With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
and prosperity.

We owe it to the people of Iraq, and its neighbours to get rid of
Saddam and his murderous regime. Let's put an end to over 20 years of
suffering. We have to overthrow this guy on human rights grounds
alone.

scott

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 03:38:5128.01.03
an
Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some people are
so quick to defend him.

Jarkko Altonen <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...

Captain Obvious

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 03:59:0528.01.03
an
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:35:16 GMT, jar...@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:

>Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>answer without changing the subject:
>
>
>"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
>responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
>
>To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
>1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

The US supported this.

>2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
>Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
>and Israelis.

The US caused those deaths.

>3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
>100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.

The US was allied with Iraq then, and said nothing.

>4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting
>uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
>Again, -almost entirely civilian-.

Again, most of this shit happened while they were allied to the US.

>5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
>the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
>children.

This has happened both when the US was allied to Iraq, and afterwards.

>6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.

Not sure where the figures for this came from, source?

>7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
>the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
>offenses.

Didn't he just RELEASE the entire prison population almost?

>8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.

Dunno about this one either, source?

>9/ Systematic use of torture.

This one is probably but I still wouldn't mind a source?

>10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
>withholding food and medicine from his own people.

Proof of this?

>With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
>secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
>rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
>world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
>and prosperity.

They actually lived quite well previous to the Iraqi defeat in 1991.
Women there were the most free in the arab world, incomes were quite
high, infrastructure was good. Foreign debt though, was bad, which is
what prompted Iraq to invade Kuwait in the first place.



>We owe it to the people of Iraq, and its neighbours to get rid of
>Saddam and his murderous regime. Let's put an end to over 20 years of
>suffering. We have to overthrow this guy on human rights grounds
>alone.

Yeah, and the rest? When are we going to fix africa? South america?
South east asia? If we are going to indict this guy on human rights
grounds alone - we've got a SHITLOAD of fighting left, africa alone is
home to HUNDREDS of little Saddam Hussein's, all with their own little
armies, fighting other little Saddam Hussein's armies, with entire
disregard for civilians or whatever gets in their way.

TheMan

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 04:24:4728.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"

Almost all of the ex-Presidents of the USA.

> To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
> 1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

American supported this war you fuckhead.

Supplied them with the very bombs and missles as well as chemical weapons
which killed these people.

> 2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
> Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
> and Israelis.

There has been no second gulf war yet.

If your talking about the first one, how did 80000 Iraqi's die exactly? Not
with their own bombs was it.

> 3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
> 100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.

America still supported them even then...

They now live in the Northern and Southern no fly zone.

> 4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting
> uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
> Again, -almost entirely civilian-.

Guesstimates maybe?

> 5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
> the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
> children.

Whats the punishment for treason in the USA?

> 6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.
>
> 7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
> the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
> offenses.
>
> 8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.
>
> 9/ Systematic use of torture.
>
> 10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
> withholding food and medicine from his own people.

Yeah that tends to happen when you put all the food and medecine in his
hands, instead of letting his people buy them, hey dickhead?

> With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
> secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
> rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
> world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
> and prosperity.

And now it's take 2, with Bush doing exactly the same thing to the Iraqi
people. But hey thats okay, America's allowed to.

> We owe it to the people of Iraq, and its neighbours to get rid of
> Saddam and his murderous regime. Let's put an end to over 20 years of
> suffering. We have to overthrow this guy on human rights grounds
> alone.

We owe to the people of Iraq to protect them from US greed.

I agree whole heartedly.

-TheMan-


Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 04:40:4528.01.03
an
"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:

>There has been no second gulf war yet.

1991.

>If your talking about the first one, how did 80000 Iraqi's die exactly? Not
>with their own bombs was it.

That was the second one. The first was Iran v Iraq. Stop now, you're
making yourself look like a fool.

>> uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
>> Again, -almost entirely civilian-.
>
>Guesstimates maybe?

Like that makes it any better?

>Whats the punishment for treason in the USA?

In the USA you don't get killed for publicly disagreeing with the
president. A ridiculous and feeble attempt at moral equivalence.

>And now it's take 2, with Bush doing exactly the same thing to the Iraqi
>people. But hey thats okay, America's allowed to.

He isn't after the Iraq ppl. The only one hurting the Iraqi people is
Saddam, yet you seem quite comfortable with this?


Axel Van Kampen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 04:52:4128.01.03
an

"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:z%rZ9.941$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> "Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> > Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> > answer without changing the subject:
> >
> >
> > "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> > responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
> Almost all of the ex-Presidents of the USA.

Really Littleman? And what do you base that on? Any facts at all or is it
just your wishful thinking?

Any evidence or figures whatsoever?

I didn't think so..............

Back in your box you go.

Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 04:56:3928.01.03
an
Captain Obvious <c@b.a> wrote:

>>1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.
>
>The US supported this.

That's like blaming the WW2 Japanese for the crimes of Hitler. Fact
is, Saddam declared this war, and directed the troop movements which
led to the deaths of 1.5 million. A fact you seem happy to ignore.

>The US caused those deaths.

Yes of course they did...

>The US was allied with Iraq then, and said nothing.

Again, a feeble attempt to divert the blame away from Saddam Hussein.

This makes it ok? A million were killed in Rwanda a few years ago, and
the United Nations did nothing. Does this mean the UN is responsible?

>Again, most of this shit happened while they were allied to the US.

See above.

>Not sure where the figures for this came from, source?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

>Didn't he just RELEASE the entire prison population almost?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

>Dunno about this one either, source?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

>>9/ Systematic use of torture.
>
>This one is probably but I still wouldn't mind a source?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

>They actually lived quite well previous to the Iraqi defeat in 1991.

In fear. It's a police state. You also seem unable to come to terms
with what led to the post 1991 situation - Saddam's unprovoked
invasion of a sovereign nation.

>Women there were the most free in the arab world, incomes were quite
>high, infrastructure was good. Foreign debt though, was bad, which is
>what prompted Iraq to invade Kuwait in the first place.

Ok, thats ok then.



>Yeah, and the rest? When are we going to fix africa? South america?

Africa needs intervention too, on human right grounds, but Iraq must
come first, as, in addition to Human rights grounds, Iraq has the
ability to threaten the free world, something the African nations do
not.

Face it, African terrorism against western targets is not a common
thing (no, I'm not talking about North Africans...)

Jonno

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 04:55:5528.01.03
an

"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:vkrZ9.830$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
> murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some
people are
> so quick to defend him.

We all know, or we've been lead to believe, that Hussein is an evil
man and should be deposed, no one would disagree with you there.The
problem,as I see it, is that unfortunately the Bush regime cannot be
trusted either, and are prepared to break international law to
achieve it's own goals.Bush believes Hussein will supply terrorists
with w.m.d. and that they may use them against the U.S..The Terrorists
will still be there after the war with more hatred in their hearts and
they can obtain any weapon they may need from other sources. BTW
Just because people are "anti-war" does not necessarily mean they
support Hussein.
Jonno


Useless Eater

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:00:4428.01.03
an
THE ROCKEFELLERS!!
HENRY KISSINGER!!

When you speak of death you mean violent deaths through physical means
e.g.execution.
But what about silent deaths caused by IMF policies, through countries
unable to sustain themselves because of crippling debt?

Debt is a weapon of mass destruction.

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...

Useless Eater

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:08:5528.01.03
an
I am not defending Saddam.
I will defend his right to defend himself, but not to run a tyranny.

However, this war has potentially devastating consequences; Blix yesterday
reported that over 6000 chem bombs are missing. Is Saddam more likely to use
them to defend himself by using them against UK/USA troops? Or Israel? How
many people will die as a consequence of this war compared to how many will
die if there is no war? Is disarmament by inspection more effective than
war?

We have seen the potential for retaliation here in the UK. It was the
French, not the British, who knew about the Ricin lab in London. Who knows
what these people have that MI5 allegedly don't know about.

Blair/Bush move the goalposts. First it's WMD. Then it's human rights (ha!).
Now it's WMD again.

BUT STILL NO QUESTION AS TO HOW SADDAM MANUFACTURED AND/OR ACQUIRED WMD

Then if he is removed, who is next? Is this selective righteousness?

It stinks. We are governed by corrupt amateurs.


"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:vkrZ9.830$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

dechucka

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:04:3528.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e36525a.9229645@news-server...

> Captain Obvious <c@b.a> wrote:
>
> >>1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.
> >
> >The US supported this.
>
> That's like blaming the WW2 Japanese for the crimes of Hitler. Fact
> is, Saddam declared this war, and directed the troop movements which
> led to the deaths of 1.5 million. A fact you seem happy to ignore.

He would have gone to war without US support with money and all those nice
weapons he usedvwould he?


>
> >The US caused those deaths.
>
> Yes of course they did...

No they didn't but morally they had a part in them


>
> >The US was allied with Iraq then, and said nothing.
>
> Again, a feeble attempt to divert the blame away from Saddam Hussein.
>
> This makes it ok? A million were killed in Rwanda a few years ago, and
> the United Nations did nothing. Does this mean the UN is responsible?

No but morally they are responsible for the extent of the deaths

pedro

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:21:0028.01.03
an
scott wrote:

> Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
> murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some people are
> so quick to defend him.

Good PR. He paints himself as the victim.

--
rgds,

Pete.
-----
'I used to be forgetful and indecisive'.
(Think I was.. don't know when.. maybe not)
http://home.iprimus.com.au/ptw/pedro

Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:31:2728.01.03
an
"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>He would have gone to war without US support with money and all those nice
>weapons he usedvwould he?

Short answer: Yes.

1/ Saddam's motive for this war was ultimately to protect his own
power base. He didn't want to allow the Shiites in Iraq's south to
form an alliance with those of the new administration in Iran, so what
the hell, he started a brutal bloody war.

2/ Iraq's military is, and always has been, supplied primarily by
RUSSIA, not the USA. Ever wondered why they use Migs and AK47's
instead of F14's and M16's?

Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 05:32:4428.01.03
an
pedro <pe...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Good PR. He paints himself as the victim.

The worrying part is that supposedly intelligent people in the West
fall for it.

Wotan

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 06:49:0928.01.03
an

scott <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:vkrZ9.830$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
> murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some people are
> so quick to defend him.
>

Nobody is defending him.

But nobody is prepared to allow the Jews to exploit the
situation so that they can become the dominant force in
the area, annex Palestine and deport all it's inhabitants "into
the dessert" (thier own words) - or make a snatch for
the oil in Syria.

Nobody believes that Saddam is any longer a threat - apart
from the Jews - because he is the sole source of supplies for
the Palestinians.

Israel, however, is a terrorist state, fully armed with nuclear,
chemical and bilogical weapons stolen from the west - which
they are now selling to China behind our backs.

Israel is a very real theat to western intersts - and even to
western civilisation. It is the most hated and destablising
force in the Middle East - and has been firing up Washington
to attack its enemies - on no known grounds whatsoever.

The Americans had to TELL them to stop selling our stolen
technology to China - which they will resume as soon as
the heat is off.

When are the weapons inspectors going into Israel to remove
the stolen WMD - to which they have no more right than
Saddam.

At least he paid for his !


Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 07:05:1828.01.03
an
"Wotan" <wo...@valhalla.net> wrote:

>Nobody is defending him.

A lot of ppl are.

>But nobody is prepared to allow the Jews to exploit the
>situation so that they can become the dominant force in

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the Israel business, however
my original point stands, and if anything you've helped to reinforce
my point:

"Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to

answer ***WITHOUT CHANGING THE SUBJECT***"

People simply won't give a straight answet to Saddam's human rights
abuses. They change the subject, they squirm around it, putting up
feeble "moral equivalence" arguments.

The guy is the cruelest fucking bastard alive on the planet at the
moment and simply MUST be brought to account for crimes against
humanity.

Theres no avoiding this conclusion.

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 08:34:0228.01.03
an
Wotan wrote:

>scott <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
>news:vkrZ9.830$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
>>murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some people are
>>so quick to defend him.
>>
>
>Nobody is defending him.
>
>But nobody is prepared to allow the Jews to exploit the
>situation so that they can become the dominant force in
>the area, annex Palestine and deport all it's inhabitants "into
>the dessert" (thier own words) - or make a snatch for
>the oil in Syria.
>

Wotan, I have a hard time convincing myself that you feel any deep
heartfelt sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Whence comes this
irrational hatred of the Jews of yours? Did one of them steal your
lunch money when you were a kid?

>Nobody believes that Saddam is any longer a threat - apart
>from the Jews - because he is the sole source of supplies for
>the Palestinians.
>
>Israel, however, is a terrorist state, fully armed with nuclear,
>chemical and bilogical weapons stolen from the west - which
>they are now selling to China behind our backs.
>

That's a separate issue, and they aren't selling nuclear technology.
It's the satellite tech sales which have made Israel a little unpopular
at the moment.

>Israel is a very real theat to western intersts - and even to
>western civilisation. It is the most hated and destablising
>force in the Middle East - and has been firing up Washington
>to attack its enemies - on no known grounds whatsoever.
>
>The Americans had to TELL them to stop selling our stolen
>technology to China - which they will resume as soon as
>the heat is off.
>

I hate to tell you this, but many of the scientists involved in the
Manhattan Project, including Einstein, were Jewish. People like you
drove them out of Europe, thinking they were subhuman. We found them
remarkably productive citizens. Never mind that they helped develop big
things that go boom, which Americans always like. :-P Anyway, many of
those citizens emigrated to Israel after the war, taking their expertise
with them, and we let them go, so we can't have thought it was that much
"theft."

--Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 08:20:1428.01.03
an
You're wasting your time with reason on these people, Jarkko. These
people will find any way possible (and some that are stretching
possibility) to blame everything that happens in the world on America,
no matter who else was involved, what we were reacting to, or why. As
long as America exists, Saddam Hussein will be as innocent as Mother
Theresa in their eyes.

What bothers me is why these people think their opinions should have
any influence on U.S. policymaking--they seem to think that we have an
obligation to take their views into account in setting our course,
despite the fact that that they'd love to steer us onto a reef. America
acts unilaterally, ignoring world opinion, precisely because world
opinion is against America. One can make a chicken-and-egg argument out
of this about which came first, but how it started isn't really relevant
at this point. Those that want to harm America are going to have to do
so against America ... not from the inside by claiming to be our friends.

--Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 08:25:5028.01.03
an
Jonno wrote:

The terrorists already have enough hatred in their hearts to attack
the USA; attacking Iraq won't change that, but it will at least cut off
one source of funding and equipment.

As to international law ... when, exactly, has international law
been effective against regimes that do not voluntarily respect it, or
when it is not in a country's interest to respect it? The EU has worked
because it is in most European's players' interest to be united to
provide a counterweight to the U.S. that none of them could do alone.
International law did not protect America from terrorists on 9/11.
International law has been ineffective in helping the most impoverished
nations on Earth: Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. It has been ineffective in
constraining regional-level players: Israel, Iraq, India, Pakistan. It
has been ineffective in curbing the excesses of mid-range global
players: Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet. I don't know why people
suddenly expect it should be completely effective in preventing the only
superpower on the planet from going after perceived threats. Outside of
Europe, international law is still a pipe dream.

--Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 08:28:3728.01.03
an
Useless Eater wrote:

>I am not defending Saddam.
>I will defend his right to defend himself, but not to run a tyranny.
>
>However, this war has potentially devastating consequences; Blix yesterday
>reported that over 6000 chem bombs are missing.
>

Then that's a breach of SCR 1441.

>Is Saddam more likely to use them to defend himself by using them against UK/USA troops? Or Israel? How many people will die as a consequence of this war compared to how many will die if there is no war? Is disarmament by inspection more effective than war?
>

You seem to believe that conflict is not inevitable, that we can
stall Saddam indefinitely. I call that wishful thinking.

>We have seen the potential for retaliation here in the UK. It was the
>French, not the British, who knew about the Ricin lab in London. Who knows
>what these people have that MI5 allegedly don't know about.
>
>Blair/Bush move the goalposts. First it's WMD. Then it's human rights (ha!).
>Now it's WMD again.
>

Human rights is playing to a different audience, but for me at
least, it's always been about WMD, and eliminating a regime that is much
more dangerous than those governed by similar tyrants around the world.
The risk is acceptable if the payoff is removing Iraq as a threat; the
same risk would not be worth it in Zimbabwe or other places where
America is criticized for standing by.

J. A.

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 09:38:0328.01.03
an
Apparently it's "No war without the world cheerleaders on the sidelines."

jar...@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen) wrote in message news:<3e363fdb.4493810@news-server>...

Useless Eater

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 10:06:0728.01.03
an
How's about this. Bush 41 and Saddam were business partners in the 1980's,
joint business account. The deal was that Saddam would give Bush 41 oil for
Zapata Oil, and Bush would pay later. BUT Bush didn't. Bush 41 screwed
Saddam. And at the same time Kuwait slant drills into Iraq with Bush
compliance. Saddam says, 'screw this, i'm at least getting my money from
Kuwait' and invades Kuwait after April Glaspie with Bush 41 consent gives
him the nod. Within days Bush 41 starts to talk of New World Order as a
multinational force is arranged to drive Saddam out of Kuwait with false
tales of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwaiti hospitals. He was not
killed in '91 because the Russians agreed that they would not defend Iraq IF
Saddam was left alive. Since then Saddam has been a thorn in the Bush. He
has potential blackmail material.

IT IS TRUE!

I think a big possibility is that Saddam 'goes into exile'. But who defends
him? Bush has the most to lose for if Saddam comes to harm certain info
about joint business accounts MIGHT become headline news...

"Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
news:3E368585...@att.not.here...

Micheal Wilson

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 13:09:1128.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>

The opposition to war in Iraq isn't about Saddam Hussein, it's about GW
Bush.


Mike

--
Illegitimi non carborundum


Ian St. John

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:14:2728.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"

Nah. The U.S keeps switching hitters.

> To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
> 1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

And this was mostly backed by America. Saddam was their 'fair haired
boy' back then and they wanted him to destroy Iran where they had
captured their embassy and the rescue attempt had shown off how clumsy
they were.

>
> 2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
> Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
> and Israelis.

Some say that the U.S. actively encouraged this mistake, however, I'll
give
it to Saddam. Nobody said he was nice. Almost as bad as the officially
sanctioned terrorism of the U.S. I have to give the U.S. credit for
being
better at hiding it though. They work through ideology, such as
destroying
the agriculture base of Africa to force GM seeds into the country by
controlling the World Bank financing that poor countries are dependent
on.

>
> 3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
> 100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.

That is interesting in some ways. Does this include the Turkish attackes
on Kurd rebels too? I wonder how many people were killed in the American
civil war? Have you counted them? While I sympathise with the Kurdish
desire for their own homeland, war is war and the assistance of the U.S.
to these rebels as a way to harass Iraq kind of backfired didn't it?
Some more deaths to share credit for.

>
> 4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting
> uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
> Again, -almost entirely civilian-.

Well, the key here is obvious "attemptiing urpisings". Isn't this a war
on terrorism? This one I think was backed by Iran. The U.S may not have
any blood on it's hands for this one. I wonder when they will learn that
giviing arms to one side then the other just encourages bloodshed. Or
do they already know that and figure when the dust settles, they will be
able to walk in over the dead and dying?

>
> 5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
> the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
> children.

This seems to be endemic among dictators. Without the legitimate support
of the people, you need a 'loyal' bodyguard and their loyalties can
change..

>
> 6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.

Not sure of the reference here. Actually, this isn't a claim by Amnesty
International is it? I have trouble being sure of such accusations.Such
claims tend to be easily said and hard to prove in a closed country.

>
> 7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
> the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
> offenses.

Again, evidence?

>
> 8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.

I suspect that. Saddam is not a nice man, nor a good leader. He is
brutal and arbitrary. However, to justify the war, you have to show that
he is a threat outside of the country.

>
> 9/ Systematic use of torture.

Again, probable. This is more a need for fear than a need for
information. Dictators depend on fear, and chemical truth drugs are much
too painless.

>
> 10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
> withholding food and medicine from his own people.

Actually the embargo is a product of the U.N. primariiliy led by the
U.S. The use of such economic punishments of a people for the sins of
the leader are a favored tactic since you can then claim that the
suffering of the people is due to the leader. It didn't work in Cuba. It
isn't working in Iraq. But it does make for good spin.

>
>
>
> With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
> secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
> rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
> world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
> and prosperity.
>
> We owe it to the people of Iraq, and its neighbours to get rid of
> Saddam and his murderous regime. Let's put an end to over 20 years of
> suffering. We have to overthrow this guy on human rights grounds
> alone.

Who asked you? Did the Iraq people vote for war with the U.S.? When you
start helping countries 'for their own good' you have entered the realm
of judge and jury for the world. Who asked the U.S. to take over the
world?? If you can find a credible threat to another country, then and
only then is there pretext for war.


RF

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:27:4328.01.03
an

"Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
news:3E3684DE...@att.not.here...

> The terrorists already have enough hatred in their hearts to attack
> the USA; attacking Iraq won't change that,

It will, it'll make it worse.

> but it will at least cut off one source of funding and equipment.

Please state the proof of the terrorists SH is supporting, insofar as it
affects the West. If you refer to his payments to the families of the
Palestinian suicide murderers, then why hasn't Israel done something about
that?
SA has allegedly funded Muslim terrorists much more, so what about that
country?

> As to international law ... when, exactly, has international law
> been effective against regimes that do not voluntarily respect it, or
> when it is not in a country's interest to respect it? The EU has worked
> because it is in most European's players' interest to be united to
> provide a counterweight to the U.S. that none of them could do alone.
> International law did not protect America from terrorists on 9/11.
> International law has been ineffective in helping the most impoverished
> nations on Earth: Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. It has been ineffective in
> constraining regional-level players: Israel, Iraq, India, Pakistan. It
> has been ineffective in curbing the excesses of mid-range global
> players: Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet. I don't know why people
> suddenly expect it should be completely effective in preventing the only
> superpower on the planet from going after perceived

Perceived or imagined, or made up?

> threats. Outside of Europe, international law is still a pipe dream.

Which therefore includes the US.
RF


RF

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:27:4428.01.03
an

"Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
news:3E368585...@att.not.here...

> Useless Eater wrote:
>
> >I am not defending Saddam.
> >I will defend his right to defend himself, but not to run a tyranny.
> >
> >However, this war has potentially devastating consequences; Blix
yesterday
> >reported that over 6000 chem bombs are missing.
> >
> Then that's a breach of SCR 1441.
>
> >Is Saddam more likely to use them to defend himself by using them against
UK/USA troops? Or Israel? How many people will die as a consequence of this
war compared to how many will die if there is no war? Is disarmament by
inspection more effective than war?
> >
> You seem to believe that conflict is not inevitable, that we can
> stall Saddam indefinitely. I call that wishful thinking.
>
> >We have seen the potential for retaliation here in the UK. It was the
> >French, not the British, who knew about the Ricin lab in London. Who
knows
> >what these people have that MI5 allegedly don't know about.
> >
> >Blair/Bush move the goalposts. First it's WMD. Then it's human rights
(ha!).
> >Now it's WMD again.
> >
> Human rights is playing to a different audience, but for me at
> least, it's always been about WMD, and eliminating a regime that is much
> more dangerous than those governed by similar tyrants around the world.

North Korea?
SH *is* a danger, to Israel, not the US/Europe.

> The risk is acceptable if the payoff is removing Iraq as a threat; the
> same risk would not be worth it in Zimbabwe or other places where
> America is criticized for standing by.

If the US went into Zimbabwe it'd be a walkover, but the US isn't interested
in that country for obvious reasons.
RF


RF

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:27:4528.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
It didn't seem to worry the American administrations of the 80s as to what
SH was doing because the US supported it. They had been kicked out of Iran
and wanted revenge, so who better than another Arab nation to wreak it? Let
them fight and weaken each other, less of a threat to Israel too they
thought.
Then through the 90s - after the Gulf War - what did America do about SH?
Nothing effectively as he's still there, but certainly the US did harm Iraqi
citizens because of the sanctions.
Now if there wasn't so many oil men in the Bush Administration, as well as
the Jewish hawks, then I'd view things differently. But 911 was ever so
convenient for Bush, with the support of the American people, to invade
various countries, using the war on terrorism as an excuse.
Never mind N Korea, Zimbabwe or other countries with dictators, they don't
have oil.
RF


David Rowland

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:40:5728.01.03
an

"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:z%rZ9.941$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> > Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> > answer without changing the subject:
> >
> >
> > "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> > responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
> Almost all of the ex-Presidents of the USA.

Well, that statement definitely proves your just an anti-US fuckwit.

Care to name all US presidents and tell us how many deaths each were
responible for? No? Didn't think so.


Rest of your crap flushed where it deserves!


Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 14:47:1628.01.03
an
"RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote:

>> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>> answer without changing the subject:

>It didn't seem to worry the American administrations of the 80s as to what
>SH was doing because the US supported it. They had been kicked out of Iran
>and wanted revenge, so who better than another Arab nation to wreak it? Let
>them fight and weaken each other, less of a threat to Israel too they
>thought.

Thank you for so comprehensively proving my point - you couldn't
answer the question "without changing the subject"

>Never mind N Korea, Zimbabwe or other countries with dictators, they don't
>have oil.

Nor does Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia...

Your anti-americanism is so amateur and undergraduate. Back in your
hole.

RF

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 18:26:4028.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e36de30.673570@news-server...

> "RF" <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote:
>
> >> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> >> answer without changing the subject:
>
> >It didn't seem to worry the American administrations of the 80s as to
what
> >SH was doing because the US supported it. They had been kicked out of
Iran
> >and wanted revenge, so who better than another Arab nation to wreak it?
Let
> >them fight and weaken each other, less of a threat to Israel too they
> >thought.
>
> Thank you for so comprehensively proving my point - you couldn't
> answer the question "without changing the subject"

Because your reasoning is wrong. The US isn't wanting to go into Iraq
because of all the deaths SH has caused. Their excuse is WMD.

> >Never mind N Korea, Zimbabwe or other countries with dictators, they
don't
> >have oil.
>
> Nor does Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia...

I wonder if Bush would have bothered about those countries.

> Your anti-americanism is so amateur and undergraduate. Back in your
> hole.

Well if you snip my post...but then, since you are so big on words, did you
post your reply from Iraq? Are you in Iraq to help remove him? Or are you
some loud mouth moralising about SH without putting your life on the line?
Nah, thought not. As if you cared about SH killing people in the *80s*, or
even 90s, what were you doing *then*? In fact, what have you done at all to
get SH removed?
FYI, I am *not* anti-American, but I *am* anti-Bush Administration, which is
in certain respects worse than the Clinton Administration, and I believe
that Bush is wanting to invade Iraq because of the oil. If you can't see
that, then try getting out of kindergarten first, and do the typing
yourself.
RF


Russil Wvong

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 19:03:5728.01.03
an
jar...@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen) wrote:
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
> To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
> 1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

Hmm. Good question. I don't think I can.

Hutu extremists killed 800,000 people in Rwanda, not millions.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm

Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic are responsible
for the deaths of perhaps 200,000 people.
http://www.markdanner.com/nyreview/112097_The_US_and_Yugoslov.htm

Nobody else comes to mind.

Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html

neptune3

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 20:50:5128.01.03
an
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:35:16 GMT, jar...@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:

>Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>answer without changing the subject:
>
>
>"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
>responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
>
>To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
>1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.

That is war, which is something the USA obviously doesn't have a
problem with.

>
>2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
>Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
>and Israelis.

The USA was the bad one.

>
>3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
>100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.

The Kurds in Iraq had been continuously armed by Israel, starting in
the 1950s, in order to destabilize Iraq.

It is good that they are dead.


>
>4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting
>uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
>Again, -almost entirely civilian-.

Leftist pro-USA and pro-Jew types no doubt. Kill them all and let
Allah sort them out.

>
>5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
>the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
>children.
>

>6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.
>

>7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
>the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
>offenses.
>

>8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.
>

>9/ Systematic use of torture.

That is what the Jews are known for.

>
>10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
>withholding food and medicine from his own people.

Caused by USA sanctions.



>
>
>With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
>secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
>rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
>world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
>and prosperity.


The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.

All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:

"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.

The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)

A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)

RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY

IQ

Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4

Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"

(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739

(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135

(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27

(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20


>
>We owe it to the people of Iraq, and its neighbours to get rid of
>Saddam and his murderous regime. Let's put an end to over 20 years of
>suffering. We have to overthrow this guy on human rights grounds
>alone.

"I'm sure people over in Iraq think that we need dictatorship.

Let them have whatever they want to have. I see more people over there
waving pictures of Saddam and
celebrating in the streets than I see people waving pictures of
Clinton or Bush over here. And over
here people are protesting instead of celebrating. No groups of
thousands in the streets celebrating
like over there.

Still, if you choose to ignore that and go buy the propaganda that
your government tells you, like that
they all secretly hate saddam and want us to get him out, then you go
right ahead and believe that.
Nobody had to help us get rid of king George. If enough citizens
REALLY don't like the government, they
have a revolution.
It is none of the US's concern what sort of government Iraq or any
other country has. We need to stop
overthrowing governments and putting in place democratic ones that
report back to our leaders and see to
it that we benefit from them somehow while the citizens of those
countries get screwed.

Russians citizens are not very happy with their new democratic
government either."
jungle jim


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://halturnershow.com www.AmRen.com

Giles Hancock

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 19:43:1729.01.03
an
Jarkko Altonen wrote:
>
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
>

[How can we possibly answer your inane question without changing the
subject ? ]

The CEO of General Motors
The CEO of Philip Morris

The guy who first got AIDS (oh ... i guess he's dead)

Boutros-Boutros Ghali

George HW Bush, for not deposing Saddam

Who cares ?
The world has 6 billion+ people. Way too many.
A few million here or there - no big deal.
That's evolution.

RealityProphet

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 23:08:3828.01.03
an
"Ian St. John" <ist...@dsl.ca> wrote in message
news:3e36d691$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

> > 10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
> > withholding food and medicine from his own people.
>
> Actually the embargo is a product of the U.N. primariiliy led by the
> U.S. The use of such economic punishments of a people for the sins of
> the leader are a favored tactic since you can then claim that the
> suffering of the people is due to the leader. It didn't work in Cuba. It
> isn't working in Iraq. But it does make for good spin.

Let me try to get this straight by you. The united states cannot use war to
enforce unconditional surrender treaties. And it appears that we cannot use
sanctions as well. Tell me, einstein, how should we go about enforcing these
treaties? We cannot award bad behavior with carrots, so what should be our
stick?

You are a moron who hides behind issues to appear legitimate, but in reality
all you want is the destruction of america. Sorry if we don't accommodate
you.

RealityProphet


TheMan

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 23:27:5528.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e365010.8643148@news-server...
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>
> >There has been no second gulf war yet.
>
> 1991.
>
> >If your talking about the first one, how did 80000 Iraqi's die exactly?
Not
> >with their own bombs was it.
>
> That was the second one. The first was Iran v Iraq. Stop now, you're
> making yourself look like a fool.

Funny that moron, no one else calls the Iran-Iraq conflict the first Gulf
War.

What about the many conflicts in that region of hundreds of years between
all the tribes? Were they gulf wars as well.

Yes you did make a fool of yourself.

> >> uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
> >> Again, -almost entirely civilian-.
> >

> >Guesstimates maybe?
>
> Like that makes it any better?

Of course it doesn't, thats why you shouldn't use guesstimates and get some
real data.

> >Whats the punishment for treason in the USA?
>
> In the USA you don't get killed for publicly disagreeing with the
> president. A ridiculous and feeble attempt at moral equivalence.

Hang on, you said any Generals leading a COUP on the leadership will be
killed.

Now, I'll ask again: WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT IN THE USA FOR TREASON?

> >And now it's take 2, with Bush doing exactly the same thing to the Iraqi
> >people. But hey thats okay, America's allowed to.
>
> He isn't after the Iraq ppl. The only one hurting the Iraqi people is
> Saddam, yet you seem quite comfortable with this?

Of course he isn't after the Iraqi people, he couldn't give a shit about
them... he's just after their Oil supplies.

Doesn't make Bush a man of morals.. it makes him just as much of a scumbag.

-TheMan-


TheMan

ungelesen,
28.01.2003, 23:32:2728.01.03
an

"David Rowland" <spama...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:X0BZ9.6$qb2...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:z%rZ9.941$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> > > Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> > > answer without changing the subject:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> > > responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
> >
> > Almost all of the ex-Presidents of the USA.
>
> Well, that statement definitely proves your just an anti-US fuckwit.

Oh yes I am David that must be it.

Now here I am going to list all the conflicts and coups for you... this is
only some of them supported by the USA:

Iran-Iraqi War
Vietnam Conflict
Korean Conflict
Pinochet Coup
Tineman Square massacre
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

ALL ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE USA

> Care to name all US presidents and tell us how many deaths each were
> responible for? No? Didn't think so.

Just did, there are many more I've forgotten.

I wonder if you consider all Historians as "anti-American". What a bullshit
word used to excuse criticism of their fuck-ups.

-TheMan-


Ian St. John

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 00:20:4029.01.03
an

"RealityProphet" <Realityn.o:s.p.a:mPro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:atIZ9.74938$rM2.43409@rwcrnsc53...

> "Ian St. John" <ist...@dsl.ca> wrote in message
> news:3e36d691$1...@audacity.velocet.net...
> > > 10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
> > > withholding food and medicine from his own people.
> >
> > Actually the embargo is a product of the U.N. primariiliy led by the
> > U.S. The use of such economic punishments of a people for the sins
of
> > the leader are a favored tactic since you can then claim that the
> > suffering of the people is due to the leader. It didn't work in
Cuba. It
> > isn't working in Iraq. But it does make for good spin.
>
> Let me try to get this straight by you. The united states cannot use
war to
> enforce unconditional surrender treaties.

I didn't know that Iraq had surrendered to the U.S. Was this before or
after the U.N led coalition war?

> And it appears that we cannot use sanctions as well.

You can try to use anything you want and can get away with. Whether they
are effective is a different story.

> Tell me, einstein, how should we go about enforcing these treaties?

I don't even remember a treaty with the U.N, much less the U.S. The U.N.
has been putting these sanctions on pretty unilaterally under it's
mandate. Under U.N. rules I'm not sure the gulf war actually qualifies
as a 'war' so much as a 'police action' and I certainly don't remember
any ceremonial surrender. Where is this claimed document kept?

> We cannot award bad behavior with carrots, so what should be our
> stick?

What the fuck makes you god anyway? Why do you think it is YOUR right to
punish anyone that doesn't live by YOUR rules? The U.N is the only world
body capable of maintaining peace between states and the U.S. has no
right to bypass it for it's own greed. Nobody is being fooled here.
Their are no weapons left as Saddam has no reasonalbe expectations of
using any WMDs for any purpose with the U.S. ready to pounce. And
without that 'excuse' it is hard to justify the theft of the oil, isn't
it?

>
> You are a moron who hides behind issues to appear legitimate, but in
reality
> all you want is the destruction of america.

What has Iraq got to do with any threat to America? The invasion of Iraq
is MUCH more likely to create a legion of Arab martyrs ready to prevent
them looting anyone elses resources.

> Sorry if we don't accommodate you.

Who is 'we' kemo sabe? YOU do not represent the U.S. even in the fools
camp.

>
> RealityProphet
>
>


Shawn

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 00:34:5429.01.03
an
How do you prove a negative?

The modern classic argument from the pacifist crowd.

How can Iraq prove that they don't have weapons of mass destruction?

Well... here we go.  President Bush tonight stated it pretty clearly.
 The United Nations had a list of WMD's that they knew Iraq possessed.
 1441 called for Iraq to account for all of the WMD's on that list.
 If 30,000 missles were destroyed, there'd be a pile of metal
somewhere.  If chemicals were degraded, there'd be barrels buried
somewhere.  If tons anthrax and tons vx were burned, there'd be
records, ashes, residue, and biohazard canisters somewhere.
And at the very least... if you were in the tough spot of proving a
negative, you'd do everything in your power to cooperate.  
However... the concept of proving a negative does not apply in this
case.
end

RealityProphet

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 01:10:1129.01.03
an
"Ian St. John" <ist...@dsl.ca> wrote in message
news:3e37...@audacity.velocet.net...

I see. So do you defer to the UN or not? You hold the UN actions in contempt
for authorizing the gulf war and then authorizing sanctions against Iraq,
but then you say that it is the only world body capable of blah blah blah.
And, if you haven't been paying attention, the united states IS going
through the UN.

But you are right, nobody is fooled. You will hold in contempt any decision
from any body that promotes the existence of the US. Tough luck for you, I
guess.

> > Sorry if we don't accommodate you.
>
> Who is 'we' kemo sabe? YOU do not represent the U.S. even in the fools
> camp.

'we' meaning the US, not anarchist canadians.

trumble

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 03:00:1929.01.03
an

"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e363fdb.4493810@news-server...
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>
Henry Kissinger


scott

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 03:36:5129.01.03
an

Jonno <gjo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e36543b$0$27993$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

>
> "scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
> news:vkrZ9.830$c7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Saddam is a threat to his own people and the World at large. He is a
> > murdering dictator, his people are dying, I don't know why some
> people are
> > so quick to defend him.
>
> We all know, or we've been lead to believe, that Hussein is an evil
> man and should be deposed, no one would disagree with you there.The
> problem,as I see it, is that unfortunately the Bush regime cannot be
> trusted either, and are prepared to break international law to
> achieve it's own goals.Bush believes Hussein will supply terrorists
> with w.m.d. and that they may use them against the U.S..The Terrorists
> will still be there after the war with more hatred in their hearts and
> they can obtain any weapon they may need from other sources. BTW
> Just because people are "anti-war" does not necessarily mean they
> support Hussein.
> Jonno


So what are the UN doing to despose of Saddam the dictator?


scott

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 03:39:3929.01.03
an

RF <spa...@thatsmybusiness.xyz> wrote in message
news:PQAZ9.3948$pe4.24...@news-text.cableinet.net...

>
> "Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
> news:3E3684DE...@att.not.here...
> > The terrorists already have enough hatred in their hearts to attack
> > the USA; attacking Iraq won't change that,
>
> It will, it'll make it worse.

Who gives a shit? Terrorists (ie, violent fundi-Islamistis) hate the US,
Christians and Jews no matter what. It's in the Koran!! The Koran encourages
Muslims to be violent towards non-Muslims.


scott

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 03:44:2729.01.03
an

Useless Eater <useles...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:104374871...@damia.uk.clara.net...

> I am not defending Saddam.
> I will defend his right to defend himself, but not to run a tyranny.
>
> However, this war has potentially devastating consequences; Blix yesterday
> reported that over 6000 chem bombs are missing. Is Saddam more likely to

use
> them to defend himself by using them against UK/USA troops? Or Israel? How
> many people will die as a consequence of this war compared to how many
will
> die if there is no war? Is disarmament by inspection more effective than
> war?

So what would you like to do about it? Disarment by inspection is
impossible; they will not and cannot find everything, and will not disarm
him at all.

> We have seen the potential for retaliation here in the UK. It was the
> French, not the British, who knew about the Ricin lab in London. Who knows
> what these people have that MI5 allegedly don't know about
>

> Blair/Bush move the goalposts. First it's WMD. Then it's human rights
(ha!).
> Now it's WMD again.

That's irrelevent.

> BUT STILL NO QUESTION AS TO HOW SADDAM MANUFACTURED AND/OR ACQUIRED WMD

Who cares? He's scum, he's a murderer, he's a dictator, he's crazy enough to
bomb my country, my family and my friends. Why aren't we allowed to get the
bastard???

> Then if he is removed, who is next? Is this selective righteousness?

Someone who's not going to f--- the UN and the World around?

> It stinks. We are governed by corrupt amateurs.

As opposed to being bullied by potential retaltion?


paul tazzyman

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 04:07:1529.01.03
an
"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:LvMZ9.2704$Tu2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> Useless Eater <useles...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:104374871...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> > I am not defending Saddam.
> > I will defend his right to defend himself, but not to run a tyranny.
> >
> > However, this war has potentially devastating consequences; Blix
yesterday
> > reported that over 6000 chem bombs are missing. Is Saddam more likely to
> use
> > them to defend himself by using them against UK/USA troops? Or Israel?
How
> > many people will die as a consequence of this war compared to how many
> will
> > die if there is no war? Is disarmament by inspection more effective than
> > war?
>
> So what would you like to do about it? Disarment by inspection is
> impossible; they will not and cannot find everything, and will not disarm
> him at all.

What I would like to see is that there has been consideration of the long
term affects of the US marching in to Iraq guns blazing. I have no problem
with someone putting a bullet between Saddam's eyes but I don't trust the
US' motives or have any confidence in their ability to mange the
consequences of invading Iraq.

It could spread much further afield than Iraq and we could end up with the
whole world embroiled in one god awful fuck-up.

Brash

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 05:42:4529.01.03
an
"paul tazzyman" <ptaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e3799c0$0$8831$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Fuckin lefties. You just love your hyperbole, don't you? Fucking "guns
blazing", what a crock.

Giles Hancock

ungelesen,
30.01.2003, 04:51:5130.01.03
an
Mike Price wrote:

>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:43:17 -0600, Giles Hancock
> <gil...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >George HW Bush, for not deposing Saddam
>
> More like the UN for refusing to mandate any further action at the
> time


True, which makes us all responsible.
So nuke me !

john purvey

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 07:20:4029.01.03
an

Giles Hancock wrote:
> Jarkko Altonen wrote:
>
>>Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>>answer without changing the subject:
>>
>>"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
>>responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"

Can you include references next time please?

Iraq war? what about the US war? The call it a defence force!! ROLFMAO,
it's an Attack Force!!


Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Through the arms group ASTRA they
gave Saddam millions of dollars worth of weaponry and missile defence
systems to oust the kurdish socialist movement out of Iraq.
(Pilger,2002:The New Rulers of the World)

Ohh actually should we argue that the american and UK tax payers have
actually killed more people than Saddam? They unknowingly funded
thatcher and reagan for this awful regime.


Pol Pot and Suharto? They massacred millions of women and children, not
'dictators'!!. Again backed by The US foreign policies as a way of
atleast the US getting 'some' back over their 'dreaded' 'loss' to North
Vietnam and Indonesia. (Chomsky, 1998:The indispensible Chomsky)


Thomas J Watson, the US inventor of IBM computers who was selling more
IBM technology to the NAZI regime than the US , his home country! The
technology was used to track down the 'hidden' Jews. I quote Hitler "the
most dangerous jews are the ones which are not apparent". Without IBM,
Hitler would have lost the ways of tracking up to 50% of the semite
population. Whats that approximately 5 million. Yes watson was fully
aware of the holoucast because he used to walk through protestors, much
like 'pro iraqi' protestors today on his way over to Germany to deliver
his new technology.Its called capitalism (Black, 2001:IBM and the
Holocaust).

George Bush has been responsible for more deaths on Iraqi children
through bombings and US imposed sanctions than who died in Hiroshima
(another US driven atrocity). The US are the only country who have
officially nuked another country with living people.(Pilger, 2002:The
New Rulers of the World).

strixbubo

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 07:35:4129.01.03
an
Jarkko Altonen wrote:
>
> Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
> answer without changing the subject:
>
> "Can you name a single person alive today, who is
> responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"

I don't know. There are people who don't lift a finger to fight AIDS or
famine, people who refuse to sign international agreements against
antipersonnel land mines, against the use of children as soldiers,
people who deny the greenhouse effect problem and have refused to sign
the Kyoto protocol. They take responsibility for a marked increase of
natural disasters, like the El Nino phenomenon is South America,
torrential rains in India, floods in Bangla Desh, raging forest fires in
Indonesia and the desertification of Africa. There are people who
continue to support ethnic cleansing and land theft in Palestine at the
expense of the native muslim and christian arab population. This cannot
fail to cause increasing frustration and anger in the whole arab and
muslim world, offers recruits to religious reactionaries, stifles
democratic opposition, impairs development and helps maintain despots in
place.

If Saddam is bad, the United States governments who supported his war
against Iran don't look much better. But I agree : Saddam is a criminal,
let's bring him to trial. There is an international court of justice for
people like him. Unfortunately the United States has sabotaged this
court. Assassinating Saddam would be an alternative, but what we are
talking about is war. We know more or less how to start a war, it is
more difficult to end it. World War I started at Sarajevo, with one
pistol shot. Four years later millions had died and the bolsheviks had
seized power in Russia, a few more years and Hitler ruled Germany. The
total death toll linked directly to this chain of events was to exceed
100 million victims.

Iraq is a ruined country under close scrutiny by the international
community since the Gulf war. Despite this, no evidence has been found
that it has kept chemical or bacteriological weapons, and nuclear
experts are convinced that it has no military atomic bombs. Either Iraq
has weapons of mass destruction or it has not. If Iraq has no WMD's, the
international community has no legal justification to attack, not its
regime but the country.

If Iraq does have WMD's, cornering Saddam Hussein might just lead him to
use them, and preferably as far as possible from his own people. How
about the US ? How many will die if Saddam manages to spray Anthrax
spores over an American city ? How many if a makeshift dirty atomic bomb
is detonated in New York ? And even if Saddam Hussein's regime is
defeated, its demise will be presented by Al Qaeda as a temporary
setback for the arab - islamic world and will be used as a recruiting
tool for more terrorist attacks. When will the US understand that a
civilized country cannot afford the become an international outlaw and
that world peace depends primarily on the rule of law, on justice and
hope ? The suicide attacks in Israel are an excellent illustration that
extreme injustice, deprivation and above all despair drive some people
literally mad, they lose common sense, their respect for fellow human
beings appears suspended, and they are ready to sacrifice their own life
and others, just hoping to wake up the world to their plight.

This is the XXIst century that we may inherit from GW Bush.



> To help you formulate an answer, his resume includes the following:
>
> 1/ Estimates for the Iran Iraq war stand at around 1.5 million dead.
>

> 2/ The Second Gulf War led to the deaths of 80,000 Iraqis, 3000
> Kuwaitis, and approximately 1000 between the coalition forces, Saudis
> and Israelis.
>

> 3/ Kurds 150,000 -mostly civilian. Amnesty International suggests that
> 100,000 were killed between 1987 and 1988 alone.
>

> 4/ Crackdowns on the marsh Arabs and various groups attempting

> uprisings in southern Iraq, maybe 30,000 in total over the years?
> Again, -almost entirely civilian-.
>

> 5/ Unsuccessful coup attempts - a few thousand perhaps? He kills all
> the generals he suspects of being involved, plus their families and
> children.
>
> 6/ Arbitrary and summary killings number in the tens of thousands.
>
> 7/ He has conducted so called "prison cleansing" campaigns, leading to
> the deaths of thousands of prisoners, many held on relatively minor
> offenses.
>
> 8/ Testing of chemical weapons on prisoners.
>
> 9/ Systematic use of torture.
>

> 10/ Add to this all of the unnecessary deaths caused by his regime
> withholding food and medicine from his own people.
>
>

> With their historically strong education sector, healthy work ethic, a
> secular and pluralistic community, and enormous natural wealth, by
> rights the Iraqi people should be amongst the most well-off in the
> world, yet one man has successfully robbed this society of life, hope
> and prosperity.
>

Jarkko Altonen

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 07:36:0529.01.03
an
john purvey <diast...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Can you include references next time please?

This should get you started
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

>(Pilger,2002:The New Rulers of the World)

Oh now there's a reliable source...

>Vietnam and Indonesia. (Chomsky, 1998:The indispensible Chomsky)

Another balanced and reliable source. I suppose Singer will be next?
You keep reading these guys and it's no wonder you end up as one eyed
as you have.


Ian St. John

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 07:44:0729.01.03
an

"RealityProphet" <Realityn.o:s.p.a:mPro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:7fKZ9.75657$rM2.43639@rwcrnsc53...

I state that the only body which has ANY right to invade another for
security issues is the U.N. No individual country has that right any
more than you can invade your neighbor because you suspect him of
something.

> You hold the UN actions in contempt for authorizing the gulf war

Contempt? No. Where is that? Are you having some problem reading or do
you read U.S. when I say U.N.?

> and then authorizing sanctions against Iraq,

I consider the sanctions futile and counterproductive. They haven't
worked in Cuba. Why would they work in Iraq?

> but then you say that it is the only world body capable of blah blah
blah.
> And, if you haven't been paying attention, the united states IS going
> through the UN.

It is NOW. Bush has weakened his stance and is now gracefully retracting
his rhetoric.

>
> But you are right, nobody is fooled. You will hold in contempt any
decision
> from any body that promotes the existence of the US. Tough luck for
you, I
> guess.

Another error! My god! You make so many I wonder if you are a rational
human being. Nobody would state that the U.N. promotes the existence of
the U.S. That would be like saying a town promotes the existence of one
of it's residents. If anything, it is the other way around, as the U.S.
needs the legitimacy of the U.N. to take action as the residents need
the town to organise civilisation.

>
>
>
> > > Sorry if we don't accommodate you.
> >
> > Who is 'we' kemo sabe? YOU do not represent the U.S. even in the
fools
> > camp.
>
> 'we' meaning the US, not anarchist canadians.

YOU are a dim bulb with absolutely no input into U.S. policy. They would
listen to Scott Ritter before they heard you. Try again loser.

>
>
>


RT

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 07:39:4329.01.03
an

john purvey wrote in message
<3e37c1f1$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...

>
>
>Giles Hancock wrote:
>> Jarkko Altonen wrote:
>>
>>>Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>>>answer without changing the subject:
>>>
>>>"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
>>>responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"

>Pol Pot and Suharto? They massacred millions of women and children, not
>'dictators'!!. Again backed by The US foreign policies as a way of
>atleast the US getting 'some' back over their 'dreaded' 'loss' to North
>Vietnam and Indonesia. (Chomsky, 1998:The indispensible Chomsky)

Pol Pot backed by US. Loss to Indonesia. Yeah.. Chomsky. Figgers.

>Thomas J Watson, the US inventor of IBM computers who was selling more
>IBM technology to the NAZI regime than the US , his home country! The
>technology was used to track down the 'hidden' Jews. I quote Hitler "the
>most dangerous jews are the ones which are not apparent". Without IBM,
>Hitler would have lost the ways of tracking up to 50% of the semite
>population. Whats that approximately 5 million. Yes watson was fully
>aware of the holoucast because he used to walk through protestors, much
>like 'pro iraqi' protestors today on his way over to Germany to deliver
>his new technology.Its called capitalism (Black, 2001:IBM and the
>Holocaust).

Que? I quote:

"Q How many Card-Programmed Electronic Calculators (CPC) did IBM deliver?

A Customer deliveries of the CPC began in late 1949, at which time
more than 20 had been ordered by government agencies and laboratories and
aircraft manufacturers. Nearly 700 CPC systems were delivered during the
first-half of the 1950s. "

Wow! More than 20 card programmable computers had been ordered "by
government agencies and laboratories and aircraft manufacturers" in 1949.
Strewth! Did it take the big dummy 4 years after the war to realise his
market to Hitler was kaput?
(ref: http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/reference/faq_0000000011.html )

>George Bush has been responsible for more deaths on Iraqi children
>through bombings and US imposed sanctions than who died in Hiroshima
>(another US driven atrocity). The US are the only country who have
>officially nuked another country with living people.(Pilger, 2002:The
>New Rulers of the World).

(As distinct from unofficially nuking a country with dead people, of course)

Pilger? Pilger! Bwahahahahaha... Yep, unimpeachable source <snigger>

Ah well, you'll be back to school now I suppose, so we'll lose our source of
innocent amusement :-)

john purvey

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 08:49:4129.01.03
an

RT wrote:
> john purvey wrote in message
> <3e37c1f1$0$31038$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>>
>>Giles Hancock wrote:
>>
>>>Jarkko Altonen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here is a very tough question for the "no Iraq war" protestors to
>>>>answer without changing the subject:
>>>>
>>>>"Can you name a single person alive today, who is
>>>>responsible for more human deaths than Saddam Hussein?"
>>>

>

why do you dibelieve this stuff? There is extensive research that has
been done to back this up. I have even researched the bibliographies
and references at the back of these books. Even the court ruling
imposed on Pilger was aquitted because he had too much evidence to back
up his 'accusations' against the US.
>
>
>
>
>

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 08:40:4629.01.03
an
paul tazzyman wrote:

That's a fair objection. But, on the other side, don't you think it
would make more sense to volunteer to be on board and thus having a say
in the current and future decision-making for the structure of the new
Iraqi government, rather than planting one's heels in opposition and
thereby alienating oneself from the powers that are going to have--for
better or worse--the most say in the reconstruction?

Note that Britain will likely have much more say in the
reconstruction than France or Germany, meaning that any objections that
they have/had to our planning will be heard at the highest levels of
civil and military planning, whereas France and Germany and the U.N. are
increasingly being dismissed as having nothing constructive to offer ...
an accusation which I personally do not think is accurate but for the
sake of planning would be forced to treat as such because they seem as
untrustworthy to us now as we seem to them. That's not a good situation
for either side, but I respectfully opine that it will hurt France and
Germany more to be on the outside than it will for us to "alienate"
ourselves, as they seem to be accusing us of doing.

--Phoenix Rising

Gobaz

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 08:45:4129.01.03
an
Phoenix Rising <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message news:<3E36838E...@att.not.here>...
> You're wasting your time with reason on these people, Jarkko. These
> people will find any way possible (and some that are stretching
> possibility) to blame everything that happens in the world on America,
> no matter who else was involved, what we were reacting to, or why. As
> long as America exists, Saddam Hussein will be as innocent as Mother
> Theresa in their eyes.
>
> What bothers me is why these people think their opinions should have
> any influence on U.S. policymaking--they seem to think that we have an
> obligation to take their views into account in setting our course,
> despite the fact that that they'd love to steer us onto a reef. America
> acts unilaterally, ignoring world opinion, precisely because world
> opinion is against America. One can make a chicken-and-egg argument out
> of this about which came first, but how it started isn't really relevant
> at this point. Those that want to harm America are going to have to do
> so against America ... not from the inside by claiming to be our friends.
>
> --Phoenix Rising

You have actually hit the nail directly on the head. I am not American
and I come up against this argument all the time people are happy to
conveniently over look facts in order that they can attack America.
What baffles me at times is you can often have an argument with these
blinkered types where they are attacking America for not acting this
happened a lot during the civil war in Yugoslavia. And when America
did finally become involved with the NATO action against Serbia, in
Kosovo these same people then accused Americans of killing innocent
Serbs, you cant win rational argument against them its a waste of
time.

However, I feel I should state that not all Europeans are anti
American while I by no means think that the US is whiter than white I
personally am grateful that the worlds only superpower is relatively
benign.

Now how do I get my green card:-)

Spligmogmagmog

Phoenix Rising

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 08:54:4029.01.03
an
Ian St. John wrote:

There are two schools of thought on that, and the matter is anything
but decided. The American POV is that admitting that would be to
surrender far more sovereignty to the U.N. than America ever signed on
to do. Likewise, Russia and China are hardly going to admit that U.N.
membership precludes them from unilateral action, nor will India,
Israel, or Pakistan. That's a majority of the world power structure
right there.

>>You hold the UN actions in contempt for authorizing the gulf war
>>
>>
>
>Contempt? No. Where is that? Are you having some problem reading or do
>you read U.S. when I say U.N.?
>
>
>
>>and then authorizing sanctions against Iraq,
>>
>>
>
>I consider the sanctions futile and counterproductive. They haven't
>worked in Cuba. Why would they work in Iraq?
>

They were considered an alternative to finishing the job at the
time, since too many Europeans wanted to pack up and go home. America
(and Britain, IIRC) were ready to finish the job at the time, but
allowed ourselves to be dissuaded, with the result of 12 years of
Ring-around-the-Rosie, a sanctions regime that has been effective at
keeping arms out of Saddam's hands but at great cost to Iraqi civilian
life, and a serious credibility problem for the U.N. in its claim to be
a legitimate arbiter of world problems.

>>but then you say that it is the only world body capable of blah blah
>>
>>
>blah.
>
>
>>And, if you haven't been paying attention, the united states IS going
>>through the UN.
>>
>>
>
>It is NOW. Bush has weakened his stance and is now gracefully retracting
>his rhetoric.
>

And look where it's gotten us. Other countries wanted to get us
into the U.N. to sabotage the operation, not to contribute anything so
positive as even a word of constructive criticism. There are people
from the continent right now that are openly admitting that they're
hoping they can use the sanctions regime to stall long enough that the
momentum for war dies, which will happen if they get their second
resolution authorizing another few months of inspections.

>>But you are right, nobody is fooled. You will hold in contempt any
>>
>>
>decision
>
>
>>from any body that promotes the existence of the US. Tough luck for
>>
>>
>you, I
>
>
>>guess.
>>
>>
>
>Another error! My god! You make so many I wonder if you are a rational
>human being. Nobody would state that the U.N. promotes the existence of
>the U.S. That would be like saying a town promotes the existence of one
>of it's residents. If anything, it is the other way around, as the U.S.
>needs the legitimacy of the U.N. to take action as the residents need
>the town to organise civilisation.
>

Again, there are two schools of thought there. The U.S. did not
have U.N. authorization to act in Kosovo, but we did. Throughout the
Cold War, the U.N. was effectively paralyzed by the split in the
Security Council, but it didn't stop America or the USSR from acting.
The U.N. needs the U.S. to give it legitimacy as much as the reverse,
if not more so; without us, it would be a flimsier paper tiger than the
League of Nations because the European powers are relatively weaker now
than they were in 1917. This is the reason the U.S. has been able to
browbeat the U.N. a few times since 9/11. Representatives of individual
countries won't publicly admit it, but their actions show that they know
that to be the case.

>>>>Sorry if we don't accommodate you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Who is 'we' kemo sabe? YOU do not represent the U.S. even in the
>>>
>>>
>fools
>
>
>>>camp.
>>>
>>>
>>'we' meaning the US, not anarchist canadians.
>>
>>
>
>YOU are a dim bulb with absolutely no input into U.S. policy. They would
>listen to Scott Ritter before they heard you. Try again loser.
>

That's an odd counterargument. Are you saying that you're in on the
U.S. decision-making loop?

For the record, I do have my doubts about the war, specifically
about how the administration plans on handling it. I did not vote for
Bush in 2000 and likely won't in 2004. But I have a far more negative
opinion of the U.N. than I have of the White House. A house divided
against itself cannot stand, and the U.N. is nothing if not divided.
Lack of commitment does not win wars, and the U.N.'s halfhearted,
photo-op peacekeeping efforts have led to embarrassments in the Middle
East and the Balkans. Freedom must be protected with power, but it
seems that far too many of the countries in the U.N. either do not
seriously believe in freedom (most of the second and third world) or do
not believe in power (most of Europe).

--Phoenix Rising

Captain Obvious

ungelesen,
29.01.2003, 08:53:3829.01.03
an