[OT] Attack Iraq? Yea or Nay?
Count 1
1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have spoken
against it.
2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a better
situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
--
Count 1
"Experiential Overdrive"
Kouros
news:akj061$1j7qkp$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de:
> Nay.
<snip>
> The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous.
> I agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack
> would have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim
> world. --
I'm not going to say either way - I don't feel I know enough about the
situation in order to make an informed comment upon it, but I would like to
say this...
You suggest that we (the World community) should allow him to make the
first move. That statement presumes that he is likely to make a move.
And if he makes such a move, what about those who are attacked? How would
we, how should we react, when we look back and recall how we had an
opportunity to make a pre-emptive strike?
Just a thought to consider.
--
How To Handle A Troll
www.angelfire.com/space/usenet
alvenor
Unless you are expecting Lt. Reed to shoot him from orbit with the Phase
Canons, I don't see how this relates to the television program Enterprise.
ALV
Count 1
alvenor <alv...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D0B3F...@attbi.com...
That is why it is titled [OT]. That stands for 'Off Topic'.
BTW - so we don't have this discussion again - the vast majority of threads
I start will have nothing to do with the television program ( as oppossed to
the radio play??) Enterprise.
Get used to it.
alvenor
So why don't you find a newsgroup where the topic is in military affairs or
international diplomacy? I'm sure the people there will be able to provide a
much more knowledgeable discussion on your topic.
ALV
Laura Ware
Look, off topic posts are allowed in this NG. There isn't a lot to talk
about regarding the show, given that we are still in rerun limbo.
Why don't you start an on topic thread that we can participate in instead of
complaining about this one?
--
Laura (bookwo...@earthlink.net)
"It speaks well of the human race, that we allow our
teenagers to live."
Count 1
Because those NG's are full of NetKooks.
Why don't you find a nice moderated NG that only allows on topic posts?
I'm sure the people there will be able to provide a
> much more knowledgeable discussion on your topic.
I doubt it.
alvenor
I subscribe to several newsgroups where Iraq is very much on topic. I was just
hoping for was a newsgroups where I can get away from the talk of a possible
real war and talk about a tv show set in fictional future.
As for asking something on topic, when is the season premier? I'm going on
vacation in a few weeks and I'd like to know if I'm going to need to set the vcr
before I leave. :-)
Thanks,
ALV
alvenor
I find the kooks in those groups to be a pain. However, I can ignore them and I
find some very knowledgeable posts by active and retired military. A well as
civilians who are knowledgeable in defense and diplomatic maters.
What I was hoping here was a group to get away from all talk about a possible
real war and maybe talk about a fictional future temporal war.
ALV
Count 1
Those opportunties abound here. Please feel free to post a thread on that
exact topic. In this group we have a large assortment of fine people ( and
a fine assortment of large people ) and I am always interested in their
views on just about any topic.
In the early days of this group someone made the suggestion of posting off
topic threads with [OT] in the header, that way you can killfile posts based
on subject and not on the author. If your reader supports it, try it. Most
of us regs follow this convention.
With regards to the future temporal way I think its just a marketing ploy
for a fictional future temporal broadcasting company looking to increase its
ratings. But that's just me and I am arguably insane. ;)
Nelson Binch©
Afghanistan before we get into anything new. We need resolution one way or
another about Osama Bin Laden. Bush has not made a case that Hussain is
such a big threat and in my honest opinion, Saudi Arabia is a much bigger
threat in the region.
Iraq was spanked pretty hard in the Gulf War and while I did not support
stopping the war where we did, I cannot support a new war there now.
Laura Ware
<snip>
> As for asking something on topic, when is the season premier? I'm going
on
> vacation in a few weeks and I'd like to know if I'm going to need to set
the vcr
> before I leave. :-)
Hmm...I think it's September 18th, but I hope someone can confirm that...
Count 1
Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> >
> > Nay. My reasons are simple
> >
> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> > against it.
>
>
> wait for the *French* to come on board.
The brits are waffling.
>
>
> > 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
>
>
> They already hate us, who cares? Saudi Arabia is worthless as an ally.
>
I'm not talking about an ally, I'm talking about a united Islamic 'world'.
Its significantly more dangerous than a fractured and squabbling Islamic
world. Preemptively attacking muslims/arabs has the potential to create
that world.
>
> > 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
>
>
> We have reasonable suspicions. You wanna wait for him to prove he has
> one by dropping it on us?
He knows if he does that he is dead and all of his neighobring countries as
well. There are enough nuclear equipped submarines at sea at anyone time
to ensure a nuclear attack on any US city can be responded to. Saddam knows
this. He is not interested in attacking America. He is interested in being
the great Arab leader. And the bomb will bring him that power.
Why didn't the US attack Pakistan when they demonstrated they had the bomb?
There is more evidence that the Pakistanis - especially their intelligence
services - are much more closely associated with anti-us based terror
organizations than Iraq is. And they have a current conflict with India
that makes their situation even more pressing, and they are operating under
a military dictatorship that took power from an elected government.
>
> > 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> > situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>
>
> How could it get worse? At least whatever strong man we put in charge
> will be beholden to us.
Until he gets a coup in the etat. There is something like 16 oppostion
groups in Iraq all centered around tribal allegiances. Not one of them is
interested in making Iraq a functioning member of the intternational
community but instead in consolidating their own tribes power.
How could it get worse? Saddam is considered a moderate in the Arab world.
Imagine someone who is not considered a moderate - someone like Mullah
Omar - who would take rabid fanaticism down roads we don't even have a map
for.
>
>
> > The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> > aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> > agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> > have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
>
>
> Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of people.
He already has killed thousands, and many of them were his own people. If
he attacks israel he is killing muslims, and then his growing power base
disappears. If he attacks America, then its the last thing he does on the
face of the earth. If he attacks his neighbors, same thing. And he knows
this. He is a schooled tactician and knows the basic law of a fight - he
who throws the first punch gets defeated.
> I have no problem with an invasion, and screw the international
> community. However, I think we need to achieve victory in Afghanistan
> first. And I mean total victory, not "looks like we have the situation
> under control." This includes finally getting Osama.
Screw the international community is exactly the sentiment the world is
complaining about Steve. You can't screw the international community. Some
of them are your friends and they are offering friendly advice. Going in
unilaterally and affecting a regime change in Iraq based on speculation of
terrorism and WMD is only going to create more enemies for the US and unite
the enemies it has. I have no illusions as to how successful they will be
in a war against the states. They will lose big time and they know it, but
keep in mind there are significant cultural differences at play here -
simply put Americans value life more than Arabs and muslims do; dying for
the cause is a great honor sought out by muslims. Americans put their life
on the line reluctantly in comparison.
Right now, an ivasion only spells trouble for America. But it will make for
great CNN.
Windows Ta', Home Version
>
> So why don't you find a newsgroup where the topic is in military affairs
or
> international diplomacy? I'm sure the people there will be able to
provide a
> much more knowledgeable discussion on your topic.
My newsreader has all of six posts from you, four in this thread. If you
dont like the content, get off your lazy, pathetic ass and do something
constructive instead of bitching like a three year old?
In other words, STFU.
Windows Ta', Home Version
"Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> > against it.
>
>
> wait for the *French* to come on board.
Why, so we can watch them surrender?
> Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of people.
>
> I have no problem with an invasion, and screw the international
> community. However, I think we need to achieve victory in Afghanistan
> first. And I mean total victory, not "looks like we have the situation
> under control." This includes finally getting Osama.+
Agreed. Every word quoted. And most that were snipped.
Someone mark the calender...
The Black Sheep
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:akj061$1j7qkp$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> Nay. My reasons are simple
>
> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> against it.
> 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
> 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving
it.
> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
In Afghanistan US military action has failed to meet its objective
(e.g. Bin Laden is still free, Al-Queda is still active). Further,
the US has killed anywhere from 700 to 5000+ civilians (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm), thus
creating many more people with all the motivation they need to hate
the western world and become terrorists. The score so far: US 0,
Terrorists 2
Why would anyone think Iraq would be any different?
I don't intend to join this debate further- in fact I've marked it as
"ignore". Anyone reading world news sources can draw their own
conclusions. Anyone only looking at the US media is not getting the
full picture. I won't waste my time on a newsgroup, I am too busy
petitioning my gov't NOT to follow the US in committing war crimes and
atrocities against humanity.
Andrew Venor
> "alvenor" <alv...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6D147D...@attbi.com...
>
> <snip>
> > As for asking something on topic, when is the season premier? I'm going
> on
> > vacation in a few weeks and I'd like to know if I'm going to need to set
> the vcr
> > before I leave. :-)
>
> Hmm...I think it's September 18th, but I hope someone can confirm that...
>
Thanks. Looks like I'll be programing the vcr before going to the airport.
ALV
Sean Carroll
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
>aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous.
Perhaps true. Of course, Saddam is nowhere remotely near as much of a
threat to world peace as George W Bush. And no matter how aggressive
he is, he is not as aggressive, as irresponsible, as powerful, and as
completely disrespectful of the rights of any people besides him and
his cronies as Bush.
If there is any world leader who deserves and needs to be removed
immediately, it is Bush. But unlike the suggestion that it is up to
Americans to high-handedly 'decide' whether or not Iraq's government
has the right to exist, I fully support the removal of Bush by the
very people he claims to be the leader of. It would be worse than
pointless for his removal to occur at the hands of another
self-interested wannabe world dictator who thinks it's up to him to
pass moral judgment on every other country but his and use force to
destroy those who don't match up with his personal power-mad agenda.
Louis M. Brown
deeply of the scotch/smoked lots of crack/used some other recreational
substance and drooled on their keyboard, causing the random characters
below to appear:
Dude, clue alert. This is the alt.hierarchy. You're gonna see a
lower signal to noise ration. This group ain't moderated, and never
will be. The on topic discussion will pick up once season 2 starts.
or
>international diplomacy? I'm sure the people there will be able to provide a
>much more knowledgeable discussion on your topic.
>
>ALV
>
Of course, maybe he's asking the folks he knows what they think....
-LMB
"Erotic is when you use a feather - Exotic is when you use the whole chicken! " - Woody Allen
"He who lives by the sword gets shot by those who don't. "
"Cat: 1. a lapwarmer with a built-in buzzer.
2. a four footed allergen.
3. a small, four-legged, fur-bearing extortionist.
4. a small, furry lap fungus.
5. a treat-seeking missile.
6. a wildlife control expert.
7. one who sleeps in old, empty pizza boxes.
8. a hair relocation expert.
9. an unprogrammable animal. "
Louis M. Brown
deeply of the scotch/smoked lots of crack/used some other recreational
substance and drooled on their keyboard, causing the random characters
below to appear:
>Laura Ware wrote:
Then skip this thread, killfile it. (Believe me, that works FAR
better than complaining about OT threads.,,,, )
>
>As for asking something on topic, when is the season premier? I'm going on
>vacation in a few weeks and I'd like to know if I'm going to need to set the vcr
>before I leave. :-)
>
>Thanks,
>ALV
>
-LMB
Louis M. Brown
<stevechr...@yahoo.com> drank deeply of the scotch/smoked lots
of crack/used some other recreational substance and drooled on their
keyboard, causing the random characters below to appear:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
>Count 1 wrote:
>>
>> Nay. My reasons are simple
>>
>> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have spoken
>> against it.
>
>
>Not the Brits, and they're the only ones with balls anyway. Oooh, let's
>wait for the *French* to come on board.
Yea, that's what we need, someone to surrender real fast.
>
>
>> 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
>
>
>They already hate us, who cares? Saudi Arabia is worthless as an ally.
Damned right.
>
>
>> 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
>
>
>We have reasonable suspicions. You wanna wait for him to prove he has
>one by dropping it on us?
Actually, Isreal is the more likely target.
>
>
>> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a better
>> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>
>
>How could it get worse? At least whatever strong man we put in charge
>will be beholden to us.
Yea, like that's gonna last.
>
>
>> The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
>> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
>> agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
>> have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
>
>
>Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of people.
>
>I have no problem with an invasion, and screw the international
>community. However, I think we need to achieve victory in Afghanistan
>first. And I mean total victory, not "looks like we have the situation
>under control." This includes finally getting Osama.
Oh hell yea.
Locutus
>
> >
> >
> > > 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
Nuke the WHOLE mideast and be done with the whole thing
BTR1701
Home Version" <tat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> >
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > >
> > > Nay. My reasons are simple
> > >
> > > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have spoken
> > > against it.
> >
> >
> > Not the Brits, and they're the only ones with balls anyway. Oooh, let's
> > wait for the *French* to come on board.
>
> Why, so we can watch them surrender?
I think they already did. It was a pre-emptive surrender.
> > Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of people.
> >
> > I have no problem with an invasion, and screw the international
> > community. However, I think we need to achieve victory in Afghanistan
> > first. And I mean total victory, not "looks like we have the situation
> > under control." This includes finally getting Osama.+
>
> Agreed. Every word quoted. And most that were snipped.
Another agreed.
BTR1701
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> > Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of
> > people.
>
> He already has killed thousands, and many of them were his own people.
> If he attacks israel he is killing muslims, and then his growing power base
> disappears. If he attacks America, then its the last thing he does on
> the face of the earth.
So we sacrifice one city to his attack before wiping him out? The fact
that Hussein is wiped off the face of the earth will be cold comfort to
the millions here who would die in his presumed first strike.
Are you willing to put yourself and your family in that hypothetical
target city?
It strikes me as ironic that the very people who howled at Bush for not
stopping 9-11 ahead of time are the same people who now want to wait for
Hussein to do that and worse to us before taking any action.
The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
destruction on his own people. I see no reason to wait until he uses
them on us also before doing something about it.
BTR1701
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
Andrew Venor
While I could reply with more juvenile taunts, I won't.
So despite my grumpy rumblings, it looks like I can't avoid the the war talk
even here. I guess I'll put my two cents in on the subject.
As it happens I am finishing up reading former UNSCOM director Richard Buters
book The Greatest Threat. So the subject of Iraq's weapons programs have been
on my mind lately.
For those who don't know, this book an account of the length that Saddam's
government went in 1997 and 1998 during Mr. Butler's tenure with UNSCOM to
violate UN resolution's for Iraq's disarmament and keep the biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons capability that it had developed.
I think this book should be recommend reading in light of the current events.
So, from my reading on this and other sources, as well as the current news, I
think that war is inevitable. It's just a question of when.
That is unless Iraq suddenly complies with the required UN resolutions. Or a
change in government if Saddam Hussein should drop dead from a stroke, or from
a 9 mm hole to the head during a Republican Guard Coup.
While war is not something I look forward to nor cheer for, inaction will only
make the butchers bill even higher in the long run if we should wait until
Iraq has the ability to use it's weapons of mass destruction on the
battlefield or in a Western city.
My worry is that it will take thousands of civilian causalities from ether at
direct attack by Iraq or a through terrorist proxies to wake the world up to
the danger. I just wonder what it will be? A biological warfare agent
released in Tel Aviv? A chemical weapons attack in the London Underground?
Or maybe a nuclear explosion on a cargo ship in an American port?
So in my opinion, unless something is done about Iraq and it's weapons of mass
destruction it's just a question of when such an attack will occur.
ALV
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
"Andrew Venor" <alv...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D6F59...@home.com...
> "Windows Ta', Home Version" wrote:
>
> > "alvenor" <alv...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6D0EBA...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > > So why don't you find a newsgroup where the topic is in military
affairs
> > or
> > > international diplomacy? I'm sure the people there will be able to
> > provide a
> > > much more knowledgeable discussion on your topic.
> >
> > My newsreader has all of six posts from you, four in this thread. If
you
> > dont like the content, get off your lazy, pathetic ass and do something
> > constructive instead of bitching like a three year old?
> >
> > In other words, STFU.
>
> While I could reply with more juvenile taunts, I won't.
Please do. I'm kinda bored in the NG till new epsidoes start...
> So despite my grumpy rumblings, it looks like I can't avoid the the war
talk
> even here. I guess I'll put my two cents in on the subject.
You can avoid them. there are other threads.
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-5F6134...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <akjjdf$1jgf5m$1...@ID-119704.news.dfncis.de>, "Windows Ta',
> Home Version" <tat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> > > X-No-Archive: yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nay. My reasons are simple
> > > >
> > > > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> > > > against it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not the Brits, and they're the only ones with balls anyway. Oooh,
let's
> > > wait for the *French* to come on board.
> >
> > Why, so we can watch them surrender?
>
> I think they already did. It was a pre-emptive surrender.
ROFLMAO
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
Cause he's kewl, and doesnt take up too much space during the on season
time.
Oh, and he's smart.
:-)
Ann Johnson
No Kill I.--Mother Horta
Terwilliger
cents while saying:
>Nay. My reasons are simple
>
>1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have spoken
>against it.
>2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
>3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
>4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a better
>situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>
>The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
>aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
>agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
>have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
Nay, it's a ploy by our president for votes and for Daddy's pride.
It's also a huge "wag the dog" so we won't look at Harken and
Halliburton too closely.
--
"We are ALL starstuff" -- Carl Sagan
Count 1
"Terwilliger" <Terwi...@seereplyto.net> wrote in message
news:hk3rmuo1celr1tgdq...@4ax.com...
> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> forked over the usual $0.00023
> cents while saying:
>
> >Nay. My reasons are simple
> >
> >1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> >against it.
> >2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
> >3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
> >4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> >situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
> >
> >The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> >aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> >agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> >have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
>
> Nay, it's a ploy by our president for votes and for Daddy's pride.
Ouch, your cynicism just gave me a cramp.
> It's also a huge "wag the dog" so we won't look at Harken and
> Halliburton too closely.
Oh. <bl;ink> <blink> Man, US politics is fucked up. Have you guys thought
of joining the Commonwealth??
Queens are far superior.
<You know, that just sounds wrong.>
--
Count 1
"Experiential Overdrive"
Count 1
<Steve - I had to employ snippage to save space - Don't blame me, blame my
parents>
> They're not going to unite behind Saddam Hussein. Turkey doesn't like
> him, both Iran and Kuwait fought wars against him, Egypt wants its
> annual subsidies from the U.S. for keeping the peace with Israel, etc.
> They may bitch, but they won't unite behind Saddam.
Excellent points, time will tell.
> > He knows if he does that he is dead and all of his neighobring countries
as
> > well. There are enough nuclear equipped submarines at sea at anyone
time
> > to ensure a nuclear attack on any US city can be responded to. Saddam
knows
> > this.
>
>
> Oh, so you want our security to depend on Saddam's sanity??
Not yet. However I am sure Tariq Aziz has briefed him.
> Which means he could bomb Israel. Or, who knows, take vengeance by
> nuking Kuwait.
But he knows this will destroy his nation. I'm not saying its impossible,
just unlikely.
> Good question. I don't trust the Pakistanis either.
Good man.
> All that shows is how nuts the Arab world is.
LOL! No doubt.
> Or imagine someone like Mubarak in Egypt, or Moussaraf in Pakistan, who
> wouldn't.
OK - what's he wearing?
> Not true, he would get credit from nutcases like the Palestinians who
> will worship him for killing Jews, and none of them will have the sense
> to point out that Muslims live in Israel too. Muslims got killed in the
> WORLD TRADE CENTER, that didn't stop Osama did it?
Another good point.
> Huh? The basic law of a fight is he who hits first, hits last if he hits
> hard enough.
Sun Tzu would agree with both of us.
> > > I have no problem with an invasion, and screw the international
> > > community. However, I think we need to achieve victory in Afghanistan
> > > first. And I mean total victory, not "looks like we have the situation
> > > under control." This includes finally getting Osama.
> >
> > Screw the international community is exactly the sentiment the world is
> > complaining about Steve.
>
>
> They always complain, nothing changes. Easy for them to gripe, they
> don't have to take responsibility for world security.
But they do have to be active participants at least on the diplomatic front.
Economic alliances are the real future power. I for one don't want china
teaming up with a united islamic world community.
> > You can't screw the international community. Some
> > of them are your friends and they are offering friendly advice. Going
in
> > unilaterally and affecting a regime change in Iraq based on speculation
of
> > terrorism and WMD is only going to create more enemies for the US and
unite
> > the enemies it has. I have no illusions as to how successful they will
be
> > in a war against the states. They will lose big time and they know it,
but
> > keep in mind there are significant cultural differences at play here -
> > simply put Americans value life more than Arabs and muslims do; dying
for
> > the cause is a great honor sought out by muslims. Americans put their
life
> > on the line reluctantly in comparison.
> >
> > Right now, an ivasion only spells trouble for America. But it will make
for
> > great CNN.
>
>
> Saddam has been a pest for over a decade, time to take him out. However,
> as stated before, we should only do so if victory is secured in
> Afghanistan.
Alright.
Count 1
> In article <akjgec$1jl6ap$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>, "Count 1"
> <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
>
> > > Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of
> > > people.
> >
> > He already has killed thousands, and many of them were his own people.
> > If he attacks israel he is killing muslims, and then his growing power
base
> > disappears. If he attacks America, then its the last thing he does on
> > the face of the earth.
>
> So we sacrifice one city to his attack before wiping him out? The fact
> that Hussein is wiped off the face of the earth will be cold comfort to
> the millions here who would die in his presumed first strike.
I'm not saying the US goes comatose. But a preemptive strike will gurantee
the one city being sacrificed. There are other things they can do.
> Are you willing to put yourself and your family in that hypothetical
> target city?
Are you?
> It strikes me as ironic that the very people who howled at Bush for not
> stopping 9-11 ahead of time are the same people who now want to wait for
> Hussein to do that and worse to us before taking any action.
> The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
> destruction on his own people. I see no reason to wait until he uses
> them on us also before doing something about it.
Then be prepared to pay a price. It sounds like you are, and I don't really
disagree with anything you say. Good points.
Count 1
"Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy" <tat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:akk0cn$1j6v8l$1...@ID-119704.news.dfncis.de...
> oppossed
> > > to the radio play??) Enterprise.
> >
> > Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
>
> Cause he's kewl, and doesnt take up too much space during the on season
> time.
>
> Oh, and he's smart.
Aw, shucks.
> :-)
Right back at ya.
Count 1
Steve owes me 100$ for porno I sent him. Thanks for the polite tone.
Terwilliger
No cynicism here. Whatever his motives, Bush* seems to be trudging on
alone. It's certainly not leadership or a sense of America: right,
everybody who disagrees: wrong. Suddenly Saddam has become a hot
ticket. Nevermind questions about 9/11, nevermind our continuous
bombing of Iraq over the last 10 years... Certainly nevermind Dick
Cheney and Halliburton doing business with Saddam even while UN
sanctions were in place. Nevermind, nevermind, nevermind. Just be good
little sheeple and cheer as we kill thousands of Iraqi's for nothing
but politics.
--
Mitchell Holman
news:BTR1702-3610FD...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
>
> The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
> destruction on his own people. I see no reason to wait until he uses
> them on us also before doing something about it.
Here is an idea. If Saddam is such a
threat to the other countries in the region,
why not let THEM "do something about it"?
David B.
Because they wusses.
Empress of The Unknown
> Nay. My reasons are simple
>
> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have spoken
> against it.
> 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
:|
They ("they" meaning the ones who use Islam as an excuse to do evil)
are *already* united against us. Using planes full of innocents as
bombs to kill even more innocents sorta says "I'm against you," don't
you think?
> 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
>
> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a better
> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
Derailing terrorists and those who fuel them will be better for our
planet. We (meaning all nations and peoples) share this little ball of
rock floating out in the middle of nowhere. We're all stuck here
together for the time being, so we have to take care of our home and
tend to it as needed. If you sit in a little box and "stay out of"
what goes on around you, "outside" problems are bound to affect you.
> The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
I'm not sure it matters. In some places, people are conditioned to
hate the U.S. no matter what. When NYC was attacked, there were
children and others overseas dancing in the streets. I'm not saying we
should attack children or that those children are bad (if they grew up
without that conditioning and out of such a hostile environment,
they'd think differently), I'm just saying it doesn't matter if we
strike first or they ("they" meaning whoever) do.
.-~* Jup
Terwilliger
$0.00023 cents while saying:
>"Count 1" wrote:
"they" is a pretty vague bogeyman
>.-~* Jup
Empress of The Unknown
> The brits are waffling.
<Homer> Mmm..waffles. </H>
> Screw the international community is exactly the sentiment the world is
> complaining about Steve. You can't screw the international community. Some
> of them are your friends and they are offering friendly advice. Going in
> unilaterally and affecting a regime change in Iraq based on speculation of
> terrorism and WMD is only going to create more enemies for the US and unite
> the enemies it has. I have no illusions as to how successful they will be
> in a war against the states. They will lose big time and they know it, but
> keep in mind there are significant cultural differences at play here -
> simply put Americans value life more than Arabs and muslims do; dying for
> the cause is a great honor sought out by muslims. Americans put their life
> on the line reluctantly in comparison.
Then maybe we should go all out to convince them to assist us. (After
Afghanistan is stable, of course).
.-~* Jup
BTR1701
<ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
Because he's more of a threat to us than them.
BTR1701
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-3610FD...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > In article <akjgec$1jl6ap$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>, "Count 1"
> > <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > > > Great, let's wait for him to develop nukes and kill thousands of
> > > > people.
> > >
> > > He already has killed thousands, and many of them were his own
> > > people. If he attacks israel he is killing muslims, and then his growing
> > > power base
> > > disappears. If he attacks America, then its the last thing he does
> > > on the face of the earth.
> >
> > So we sacrifice one city to his attack before wiping him out? The fact
> > that Hussein is wiped off the face of the earth will be cold comfort to
> > the millions here who would die in his presumed first strike.
>
> I'm not saying the US goes comatose. But a preemptive strike will
> gurantee the one city being sacrificed.
Not necessarily.
>
> > Are you willing to put yourself and your family in that hypothetical
> > target city?
>
> Are you?
No, that's why the head of Iraq should be severed. It should have been
severed in the early 90's but that's another issue.
BTR1701
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
start by giving it.
zamb...@knowspamatcomcast.net
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>
>>
>> Count 1 wrote:
>> >
>> > Nay. My reasons are simple
>> >
>> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
>spoken
>> > against it.
>>
>>
>> Not the Brits, and they're the only ones with balls anyway. Oooh, let's
>> wait for the *French* to come on board.
>
>The brits are waffling.
Hey, I thought the Belgians were waffling!
and for the French, I think the problem they are having with this
conflict is that there is no clearly defined goal nor an easily
identifiable adversary. In other words, how will they know when, where
and to whom to surrender.
>
>>
>>
Count 1
> > > Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
> >
> > Steve owes me 100$ for porno I sent him. Thanks for the polite tone.
>
> Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
> shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
> this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
> topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
> start by giving it.
I resisted the urge to slam you before. I think I may have to change my
tactic.
There is nothing, repeat NOTHING - impolite about an off topic post, by
virtue of it being off topic.
If you think that's impolit, you should have seen what we did to the
NetNazi's who came around here in the very early days.
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
> attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
> annoying than Iraq.
>
> Reasons to attack France:
>
> (1) Those fucking motor scooters all over the place.
> (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag the
> whole place by Saturday.
You mean, starting Friday? Yeah, Sat sounds good. Unless there is rain,
cause then the french will surrender faster...
> (3) Great wine and food: once we conquer let's eat and drink it all and
> then leave.
> (4) Annoying people with names like Pierre.
> (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
> (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and armpits,
> that is).
> (7) Opportunity to drop small coins off the Eiffel Tower and run away
> giggling.
> (8) People who don't shower and wear berets basically deserve to be
> attacked on general principles.
> (9) Their teeth look like Fiver's.
> (10) That Le, La shit really begins to piss you off after a while.
ROFLMAO
You got my vote!
Count 1
Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6DCA...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
> attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
> annoying than Iraq.
>
> Reasons to attack France:
>
> (1) Those fucking motor scooters all over the place.
> (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag the
> whole place by Saturday.
> then leave.
> (4) Annoying people with names like Pierre.
> (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
> (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and armpits,
> that is).
> (7) Opportunity to drop small coins off the Eiffel Tower and run away
> giggling.
> (8) People who don't shower and wear berets basically deserve to be
> attacked on general principles.
> (9) Their teeth look like Fiver's.
> (10) That Le, La shit really begins to piss you off after a while.
LOL!
I would like to be the first to volunteer for this noble effort.
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
>
> Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
> shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
> this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
> topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
> start by giving it.
You've been around these groups for a while. Why does this OT'ness surprise
you? This is not a.t.a, where they stay pretty much ontopic all year long.
We're quite ontopic during most of the season, and during the
summerslowdown, we're not as much. Thats how its been for years. <shrug>
Does it make it right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But thats how it is, and I'm
just surprised it still would surprise you...
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
<zamb...@knowspamatcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:tbcsmuggingrsflsa...@4ax.com...
You owe me a new laptop monitor!
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
: attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
: annoying than Iraq.
: Reasons to attack France:
: (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag the
: whole place by Saturday.
: (3) Great wine and food: once we conquer let's eat and drink it all and
: then leave.
: (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
: (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and armpits,
: that is).
Although this is an old joke, considering that the poverty in Canada's
Atlantic provinces has been worsened because the French overfished the
Atlantic cod into extinction, many Canadians feel that France owes it a
great deal of money.
In addition, it is believed that the French government was involved in
instigating and encouraging the secessionist movement in Quebec.
Also, whatever one's feelings about the protest tactics of Greenpeace, a
Canadian citizen died in New Zealand as the result of a bomb apparently
planted by French intelligence agents; when someone dies from a bomb
planted illegally, that is murder under Canadian law, and may well be
under New Zealand law. New Zealand released suspects in this case after
France threatened trade sanctions against it.
Regrettably, France has atomic weapons, and Canada does not, which is
presumably why it feels it can get away with such behavior.
John Savard
RonWeasleyFan
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
> attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
> annoying than Iraq.
>
> Reasons to attack France:
>
<<<<list deleted for space>>>>
gee, Steve, you really are a merde disturber, aren't you? Er, would that
be Le Merde Disturber or La Merde Disturber?
O:-)
RWF
--
RWF-
HarryPotterfan, also a hockey fan, an Enterprise fan, a
John Cusack fan, A M*A*S*H fan and full time Mom
g
have no idea of what the real world is about.
"Sean Carroll" <se...@kua.net> wrote in message
news:3d6d502b....@news.kua.net...
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:11:50 -0700, "Count 1"
> <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> >aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous.
>
> Perhaps true. Of course, Saddam is nowhere remotely near as much of a
> threat to world peace as George W Bush. And no matter how aggressive
> he is, he is not as aggressive, as irresponsible, as powerful, and as
> completely disrespectful of the rights of any people besides him and
> his cronies as Bush.
>
> If there is any world leader who deserves and needs to be removed
> immediately, it is Bush. But unlike the suggestion that it is up to
> Americans to high-handedly 'decide' whether or not Iraq's government
> has the right to exist, I fully support the removal of Bush by the
> very people he claims to be the leader of. It would be worse than
> pointless for his removal to occur at the hands of another
> self-interested wannabe world dictator who thinks it's up to him to
> pass moral judgment on every other country but his and use force to
> destroy those who don't match up with his personal power-mad agenda.
>
> --Sean
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/spclsd223/
Jonathan Archer
nuclear weapons....lovely idea
Count 1
Empress of The Unknown <jupit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98e7c405.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Count 1" wrote:
>
> > Nay. My reasons are simple
> >
> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> > against it.
> > 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
>
> :|
>
> They ("they" meaning the ones who use Islam as an excuse to do evil)
> are *already* united against us. Using planes full of innocents as
> bombs to kill even more innocents sorta says "I'm against you," don't
> you think?
Yes - but those cats don't represent the entire arab and muslim world.
That's like saying Fred Phelps represents christian america.
> Derailing terrorists and those who fuel them will be better for our
> planet. We (meaning all nations and peoples) share this little ball of
> rock floating out in the middle of nowhere. We're all stuck here
> together for the time being, so we have to take care of our home and
> tend to it as needed. If you sit in a little box and "stay out of"
> what goes on around you, "outside" problems are bound to affect you.
Good point.
> > The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> > aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> > agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> > have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
>
> I'm not sure it matters. In some places, people are conditioned to
> hate the U.S. no matter what. When NYC was attacked, there were
> children and others overseas dancing in the streets. I'm not saying we
> should attack children or that those children are bad (if they grew up
> without that conditioning and out of such a hostile environment,
> they'd think differently), I'm just saying it doesn't matter if we
> strike first or they ("they" meaning whoever) do.
Another good point. My concern is the proposed solution is not a solution,
but an exacerbation.
Time will tell.
Count 1
Jonathan Archer <J_Ar...@trek-generations.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e05c024.0208...@posting.google.com...
> Oh yes lets attack Iraq, then they can destroy the whole world with
> nuclear weapons....lovely idea
Its not outside the realm of possibility that we wants to do that anyway.
So why not strike first?
BTR1701
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-085189...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>
> >
> > Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps
> > you shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
> > this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
> > topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
> > start by giving it.
>
> You've been around these groups for a while. Why does this OT'ness
> surprise you?
It doesn't. What suprises me is the balls on this guy to expect people
to be polite to him while he does things that are considered rude.
BTR1701
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
> > >
> > > Steve owes me 100$ for porno I sent him. Thanks for the polite tone.
> >
> > Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
> > shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
> > this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
> > topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
> > start by giving it.
>
> I resisted the urge to slam you before. I think I may have to change my
> tactic.
>
> There is nothing, repeat NOTHING - impolite about an off topic post, by
> virtue of it being off topic.
So you say. I've been around enough to know that it's generally frowned
upon and that makes it an impolite act.
Look, I don't care what you post. Have at it. I just find it amazing
that you expect people to be polite to you when you're not willing to do
that same.
Sean Carroll
>Sean, your loony anti-American fixation give me endless laughs. You really
>have no idea of what the real world is about.
LOL. Only a totally deluded nationalist sheep could possibly think
'what the real world is about' has anything to do with nation-states.
Count 1
I expect to be treated as I treat others. I find it amazing you consider an
OT post clearly marked OT to be impolite. Chalk it up to a difference of
opinion.
Count 1
So the OT does not surprise you but the rudeness does? But the rudeness is
the OT part?
My head is spinning.
And you're not the first person to be surprised by my balls. ;-)
zamb...@knowspamatcomcast.net
DONE! Receipt might be a problem, however, as I am a cinnamon farmer
on Madagascar.
Geeze, I'm glad I didn't say any more! I might have owed you some
underwear too!!! (Wouldn't be the first time...sigh)
I was going to drag the British in too.
I was going to say something about the new elite French special
forces. The "1st Airborne Capitulation Corps", able to deliver an
article of surrender anywhere on the planet in 12 hours.
I thought it might get too wordy.
Just for my accountant: what was the nature of the beverage?
zamboni
zamb...@knowspamatcomcast.net
(Jonathan Archer) wrote:
>Oh yes lets attack Iraq, then they can destroy the whole world with
>nuclear weapons....lovely idea
YEAH!!!
...what?
zamboni
BraveNewWhirl
> > Huh? The basic law of a fight is he who hits first, hits last if he hits
> > hard enough.
>
> Sun Tzu would agree with both of us.
>
You had better go back to Sun Tzu school. You are both - quite wrong.
chibiangi
Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:akj061$1j7qkp$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> Nay. My reasons are simple
>
> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> against it.
> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>
> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
Why don't we stop buying their oil?
After the people starve for lack of US $$$, it won't take long for massive
political restructuring to occur.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEB MBC Sushi!Girlie
"When I bite into a York Peppermint Patty, I get the sensation of
performing oral sex
on a poorly constructed snowman standing in the yard of people I have never
met."-ad
"My career lets me travel to all kinds of great overseas places, like
Canada."
-Britney Spears
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Holman
Exqueese me?
When has Iraq ever attacked or even
threatened to attack the US?
Mitchell Holman
@hotmail.com:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:BTR1702-3610FD...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
>>
>> >
>> > The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
>> > destruction on his own people. I see no reason to wait until he uses
>> > them on us also before doing something about it.
>>
>> Here is an idea. If Saddam is such a
>> threat to the other countries in the region,
>> why not let THEM "do something about it"?
>
> Because they wusses.
Even more reason for us to steer clear
of the region.
BTR1701
<ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-
> 309168.070...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
>
> > In article <Xns92799925...@204.127.202.16>, Mitchell Holman
> > <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> >> news:BTR1702-3610FD...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
> >> > destruction on his own people. I see no reason to wait until he uses
> >> > them on us also before doing something about it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is an idea. If Saddam is such a
> >> threat to the other countries in the region,
> >> why not let THEM "do something about it"?
> >
> > Because he's more of a threat to us than them.
> >
>
> Exqueese me?
>
> When has Iraq ever attacked or even
> threatened to attack the US?
Listen to any speech by Hussein where the talks about "destroying the
infidels". Who do you suppose the infidels are?
BTR1701
J_Ar...@trek-generations.co.uk (Jonathan Archer) wrote:
> Oh yes lets attack Iraq, then they can destroy the whole world with
> nuclear weapons....lovely idea
Iraq does not possess the capability to destroy the whole world with
nuclear weapons.
It's not the USSR.
BTR1701
braven...@postmaster.co.uk (BraveNewWhirl) wrote:
> >
> > > Huh? The basic law of a fight is he who hits first, hits last if he
> > > hits hard enough.
> >
> > Sun Tzu would agree with both of us.
> >
> You had better go back to Sun Tzu school.
There's a Sun Tzu school? Where do I register?
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
<zamb...@knowspamatcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:aq3tmuohi4nqte1cn...@4ax.com...
> >
> >You owe me a new laptop monitor!
> >
> DONE! Receipt might be a problem, however, as I am a cinnamon farmer
> on Madagascar.
Ummm... Dont suppose you get FedEx there?
> Geeze, I'm glad I didn't say any more! I might have owed you some
> underwear too!!! (Wouldn't be the first time...sigh)
That you've bought someone underwear over the internet... Interesting.
> I was going to drag the British in too.
Bah. They'll just fuck up and wait for us to save thier limey asses.
> I was going to say something about the new elite French special
> forces. The "1st Airborne Capitulation Corps", able to deliver an
> article of surrender anywhere on the planet in 12 hours.
ROFLMAO!
Yeah. Amazing howquick the french are getting. I hear the french banned
the internet because too many people were trying to surrender over the net,
and the servers finally gave up too...
(I had a joke in there, I swear. It just... got lost between mind and
keys...)
> I thought it might get too wordy.
A tad.
> Just for my accountant: what was the nature of the beverage?
A nice Iced tea...
> zamboni
Ta', The Man, The Myth, The Comedy
That was my point. Here it *isnt* considered rude... "When in Rome..."
Mark Stahl
> In article <akjgec$1jl6ap$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>, "Count 1"
> <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
>
> > > people.
> >
> > He already has killed thousands, and many of them were his own people.
> > If he attacks israel he is killing muslims, and then his growing power
base
> > disappears. If he attacks America, then its the last thing he does on
> > the face of the earth.
>
> So we sacrifice one city to his attack before wiping him out? The fact
> that Hussein is wiped off the face of the earth will be cold comfort to
> the millions here who would die in his presumed first strike.
>
attacking him virtually guarantees he uses whatever such weapons he has. not
attacking, besides being the moral thing to do in terms of not killing
masses of people in the violence of war, leaves open other avenues of
solving the problems.
> Are you willing to put yourself and your family in that hypothetical
> target city?
>
> It strikes me as ironic that the very people who howled at Bush for not
> stopping 9-11 ahead of time are the same people who now want to wait for
> Hussein to do that and worse to us before taking any action.
>
it is difficult to justify punishing a criminal because he *may* do
something....
> The man is a monster. He possesses and has used weapons of mass
> destruction on his own people.
the U.S. possesses and has used even more terrible weapons.
> I see no reason to wait until he uses
> them on us also before doing something about it.
i agree, but why does "something" have to be violent? despite what the
military-industrial complex would have us believe, there are other ways to
solve diplomatic problems.
Mark Stahl
"Terwilliger" <Terwi...@seereplyto.net> wrote in message
news:47armusrcjk774271...@4ax.com...
> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> forked over the usual $0.00023
> cents while saying:
>
> >
> >"Terwilliger" <Terwi...@seereplyto.net> wrote in message
> >news:hk3rmuo1celr1tgdq...@4ax.com...
> >> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> forked over the usual $0.00023
> >> cents while saying:
> >>
> >> >Nay. My reasons are simple
> >> >
> >> >1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
> >spoken
> >> >against it.
> >> >2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
> >> >3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
> >> >4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
> >better
> >> >situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
> >> >
> >> >The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> >> >aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous.
I
> >> >agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack
would
> >> >have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
> >>
> >
> >Ouch, your cynicism just gave me a cramp.
> >
> >> It's also a huge "wag the dog" so we won't look at Harken and
> >> Halliburton too closely.
> >
> >Oh. <bl;ink> <blink> Man, US politics is fucked up. Have you guys
thought
> >of joining the Commonwealth??
> >
> >Queens are far superior.
> >
> ><You know, that just sounds wrong.>
>
> No cynicism here. Whatever his motives, Bush* seems to be trudging on
> alone. It's certainly not leadership or a sense of America: right,
> everybody who disagrees: wrong. Suddenly Saddam has become a hot
> ticket. Nevermind questions about 9/11, nevermind our continuous
> bombing of Iraq over the last 10 years... Certainly nevermind Dick
> Cheney and Halliburton doing business with Saddam even while UN
> sanctions were in place. Nevermind, nevermind, nevermind. Just be good
> little sheeple and cheer as we kill thousands of Iraqi's for nothing
> but politics.
>
sounds about right....
Louis M. Brown
drank deeply of the scotch/smoked lots of crack/used some other
recreational substance and drooled on their keyboard, causing the
random characters below to appear:
>In article <akk84l$1iip2e$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>, "Count 1"
><omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:BTR1702-D122FF...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> > In article <akj2a5$1jd4s2$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>, "Count 1"
>> > <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > alvenor <alv...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:3D6D0B3F...@attbi.com...
>> > > > Count 1 wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Nay. My reasons are simple
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most
>> > > > > have spoken against it.
>> > > > > 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
>> > > > > 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
>> > > > > 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will
>> > > > > create a better situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam
>> > > > > is aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and
>> > > > > dangerous.
>> > > > > I agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory
>> > > > > attack would have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim
>> > > > > world.
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Count 1
>> > > > > "Experiential Overdrive"
>> > > >
>> > > > Unless you are expecting Lt. Reed to shoot him from orbit with the
>> > > > Phase Canons, I don't see how this relates to the television
>> > > > program Enterprise.
>> > >
>> > > That is why it is titled [OT]. That stands for 'Off Topic'.
>> > >
>> > > BTW - so we don't have this discussion again - the vast majority of
>> > > threads I start will have nothing to do with the television program (
>> > > as oppossed to the radio play??) Enterprise.
>> >
>> > Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
>>
>> Steve owes me 100$ for porno I sent him. Thanks for the polite tone.
>
>Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
>shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
>this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
>topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
>start by giving it.
Well, you're obviously not gonna earn it.
-LMB
"Erotic is when you use a feather - Exotic is when you use the whole chicken! " - Woody Allen
"He who lives by the sword gets shot by those who don't. "
"Cat: 1. a lapwarmer with a built-in buzzer.
2. a four footed allergen.
3. a small, four-legged, fur-bearing extortionist.
4. a small, furry lap fungus.
5. a treat-seeking missile.
6. a wildlife control expert.
7. one who sleeps in old, empty pizza boxes.
8. a hair relocation expert.
9. an unprogrammable animal. "
Louis M. Brown
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> drank deeply of the scotch/smoked lots of
crack/used some other recreational substance and drooled on their
keyboard, causing the random characters below to appear:
>
>> > > Then why the hell are you here in this newsgroup?
>> >
>> > Steve owes me 100$ for porno I sent him. Thanks for the polite tone.
>>
>> Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps you
>> shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's true
>> this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
>> topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
>> start by giving it.
>
>I resisted the urge to slam you before. I think I may have to change my
>tactic.
>
>There is nothing, repeat NOTHING - impolite about an off topic post, by
>virtue of it being off topic.
Especially when it's fucking labeled [O-fucking-T]
>
>If you think that's impolit, you should have seen what we did to the
>NetNazi's who came around here in the very early days.
WickeddollŽ
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
> attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
> annoying than Iraq.
>
> Reasons to attack France:
>
> (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag the
> whole place by Saturday.
> (3) Great wine and food: once we conquer let's eat and drink it all and
> then leave.
> (4) Annoying people with names like Pierre.
> (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
> (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and armpits,
> that is).
> (7) Opportunity to drop small coins off the Eiffel Tower and run away
> giggling.
> (8) People who don't shower and wear berets basically deserve to be
> attacked on general principles.
> (9) Their teeth look like Fiver's.
> (10) That Le, La shit really begins to piss you off after a while.
Oh my...
Natalie
Empress of The Unknown
> ..Empress of The Unknown..
[snip]
> > I'm not sure it matters. In some places, people are conditioned to
> >hate the U.S. no matter what. When NYC was attacked, there were
> >children and others overseas dancing in the streets. I'm not saying we
> >should attack children or that those children are bad (if they grew up
> >without that conditioning and out of such a hostile environment,
> >they'd think differently), I'm just saying it doesn't matter if we
> >strike first or they ("they" meaning whoever) do.
>
> "they" is a pretty vague bogeyman
That makes it a hell of a lot more difficult, true. However,
terrorists still pose a problem that requires being dealt with--No
amount of "It's too hard"s will change that fact. And *who* we're
fighting against won't become any easier to discern (since that's the
nature of these terrorists--you can't always tell by looking at them,
etc). We just (and I don't mean "just" in a light way) have to find
better ways to flush them out.
.-~* Jup
Empress of The Unknown
> Empress of The Unknown..wrote..
> > "Count 1" wrote:
> > > 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
> >
> > They ("they" meaning the ones who use Islam as an excuse to do evil)
> > are *already* united against us. Using planes full of innocents as
> > bombs to kill even more innocents sorta says "I'm against you," don't
> > you think?
>
> Yes - but those cats don't represent the entire arab and muslim world.
> That's like saying Fred Phelps represents christian america.
I never said that they did. (And I'll just say now that I never
would lump Muslims or middle easterners--or any peoples--into one
category/stereotype. Besides, I've been told I've got a dash of Arab
myself.)
Anyhow, I was merely saying that terrorists have attacked us and
that says "I hate you." I'm not saying attack all Arabs or all
Muslims; I'm saying attack the terrorists who happen to use Islam as
their excuse. And, yes, I know it isn't easy to accomplish, but that's
why we have our military and their thinkers/strategists.
As for our actions uniting Muslims and Arabs against us, it is true
that some or many will look at us in a bad light. But, as I've said,
when we took action after 9-11, there were Muslims and Arabs who hated
us for fighting back eventhough we were attacked first. As for the
ones who are conditioned to hate us, they'll hate us no matter who
throws the first punch. But there are Muslim and Arab nations out
there who are upset that the "Muslim" terrorists have given Islam a
bad name and will either stay out of it, hold the same views of the
terrorists that we do, or maybe even assist us.
> > Derailing terrorists and those who fuel them will be better for our
> > planet. We (meaning all nations and peoples) share this little ball of
> > rock floating out in the middle of nowhere. We're all stuck here
> > together for the time being, so we have to take care of our home and
> > tend to it as needed. If you sit in a little box and "stay out of"
> > what goes on around you, "outside" problems are bound to affect you.
>
> Good point.
It sort of reminds me of WWII. So many people were killed in those
camps by the time we got into the war. There's a lesson to be learned
from that. I don't mean in every situation we should automatically go
Rambo. But we have to get actively involved in world affairs.
> > > The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> > > aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> > > agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> > > have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
> >
> > I'm not sure it matters. In some places, people are conditioned to
> > hate the U.S. no matter what. When NYC was attacked, there were
> > children and others overseas dancing in the streets. I'm not saying we
> > should attack children or that those children are bad (if they grew up
> > without that conditioning and out of such a hostile environment,
> > they'd think differently), I'm just saying it doesn't matter if we
> > strike first or they ("they" meaning whoever) do.
>
> Another good point. My concern is the proposed solution is not a solution,
> but an exacerbation.
It depends on how it's done. I believe it will be better if we get
other nations involved, so it becomes an obvious world effort as
opposed to an action the U.S. is taking just because it wants to be a
bad ass.
> Time will tell.
Time isn't reliable. I'm disturbed and admittedly scared everytime I
see more turmoil breaking out in the Middle East or things becoming
more heated and volatile. It feels like the earth is a pot of lightly
boiling water and a bunch of pyromaniac toddlers are over in that part
of the world fiddling with the temperature dials. It freaks me out. I
don't know about you, but I don't want to wait to get burned before
taking action; I'm sick of seeing so many innocents--victims and
families--scarred from all this. If we can keep those hands away from
those dials, let's do it.
.-~* Jup
Terwilliger
$0.00023 cents while saying:
>In article <Xns9279C421A...@63.240.76.16>, Mitchell Holman
><ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Exqueese me?
>>
>> When has Iraq ever attacked or even
>> threatened to attack the US?
>
>Desert Storm, anyone?
No. He invaded Kuwait the the US attacked him. I would think he might
be a little pissy in that case.
--
"We are ALL starstuff" -- Carl Sagan
Terwilliger
while saying:
yeah, but those melons are dense and impenetrable
David B.
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> I think we're missing the real issue here, namely whether we should
> attack FRANCE. It's probably the only country in the world which is more
> annoying than Iraq.
Let's go kill all the frogs in France. The Frenchies'll go nuts without
froglegs to eat...
David B.
>
> In article <akmn4f$1j59lh$1...@ID-125536.news.dfncis.de>, WickeddollŽ
> <wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Reasons to attack France:
> > >
> > > (1) Those fucking motor scooters all over the place.
> > > (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag the
> > > whole place by Saturday.
> > > (3) Great wine and food: once we conquer let's eat and drink it all and
> > > then leave.
> > > (4) Annoying people with names like Pierre.
> > > (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
> > > (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and armpits,
> > > that is).
> > > (7) Opportunity to drop small coins off the Eiffel Tower and run away
> > > giggling.
> > > (8) People who don't shower and wear berets basically deserve to be
> > > attacked on general principles.
> > > (9) Their teeth look like Fiver's.
> > > (10) That Le, La shit really begins to piss you off after a while.
> >
> > Oh my...
> >
> > Natalie
>
The actress in that movie is cute.
David B.
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:49:22 -0700, "Count 1"
> <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> X-No-Archive: yes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Count 1 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
> >spoken
> >> > against it.
> >>
> >>
> >> wait for the *French* to come on board.
> >
> >The brits are waffling.
>
> Hey, I thought the Belgians were waffling!
>
> and for the French, I think the problem they are having with this
> conflict is that there is no clearly defined goal nor an easily
> identifiable adversary. In other words, how will they know when, where
> and to whom to surrender.
Nah, the French surrender to the first scary person they see.
David B.
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:49:22 -0700, "Count 1"
> > <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3D6D34...@yahoo.com...
> > >> X-No-Archive: yes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Count 1 wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Nay. My reasons are simple
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
> > >spoken
> > >> > against it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Not the Brits, and they're the only ones with balls anyway. Oooh, let's
> > >> wait for the *French* to come on board.
> > >
> > >The brits are waffling.
> >
> > Hey, I thought the Belgians were waffling!
> >
> > and for the French, I think the problem they are having with this
> > conflict is that there is no clearly defined goal nor an easily
> > identifiable adversary. In other words, how will they know when, where
> > and to whom to surrender.
>
Hey, you were the one lookin' at porno!
David B.
>
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-3729CC...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > In article <aklg19$1jhnvq$1...@ID-119704.news.dfncis.de>, "Ta', The Man,
> > The Myth, The Comedy" <tat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:BTR1702-085189...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if you don't like my tone but if it's polite you want, perhaps
> > > > you shouldn't be impolite yourself by starting off topic threads. It's
> true
> > > > this group isn't moderated and no one can stop you from posting off
> > > > topic but it's certainly not polite to do so. You want polite? Then
> > > > start by giving it.
> > >
> > > You've been around these groups for a while. Why does this OT'ness
> > > surprise you?
> >
> > It doesn't. What suprises me is the balls on this guy to expect people
> > to be polite to him while he does things that are considered rude.
>
> So the OT does not surprise you but the rudeness does? But the rudeness is
> the OT part?
>
> My head is spinning.
>
> And you're not the first person to be surprised by my balls. ;-)
That small, huh? ;)
Mitchell Holman
news:300820020125115443%n...@spam.invalid:
> In article <9tg21vsadpk8tvn3q...@4ax.com>, Terwilliger
> Well, fuck him, he deserved it! If he attacked Kuwait, he can attack
> anyone. We can't give him the opportunity.
>
Why is that our concern? I don't recall the
US getting huffy when Libya invaded Chad, or when
Vietnam invaded Cambodia, or when Tanzania invaded
Uganda, or when Somalia invaded Ethiopia.
Oh, wait - none of those invaded countries had
OIL or business ties to US politicians.
Never mind.
Mitchell Holman
news:BTR1702-AD0297...@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
Isreal, mostly. And the Kuwaiti & Saudi
royal families that we mysteriously feel
obligated to protect.
Mitchell Holman
> In article <BTR1702-2B9BD4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701
> <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Iraq does not possess the capability to destroy the whole world with
>> nuclear weapons.
>
> We can't take the risk that it might GAIN such capability.
>
Why? Pakistan and India have nukes (thanks
to the US). Are their governments any more
stable than Iraq?
Mitchell Holman
@nntp.ix.netcom.com:
It's right down the street from
Starfleet Academy.
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> Nah, the French surrender to the first scary person they see.
Depends on how many bars of soap they
are being threatened with.
Mitchell Holman
> In article <akmn4f$1j59lh$1...@ID-125536.news.dfncis.de>, WickeddollŽ
> <wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Reasons to attack France:
>> >
>> > (1) Those fucking motor scooters all over the place.
>> > (2) Losing to Germany in six weeks probably means the U.S. can bag
>> > the whole place by Saturday.
>> > (3) Great wine and food: once we conquer let's eat and drink it all
>> > and then leave.
>> > (4) Annoying people with names like Pierre.
>> > (5) People who pretend they don't speak English.
>> > (6) The chicks aren't bad (the ones that shave their legs and
>> > armpits, that is).
>> > (7) Opportunity to drop small coins off the Eiffel Tower and run
>> > away giggling.
>> > (8) People who don't shower and wear berets basically deserve to be
>> > attacked on general principles.
>> > (9) Their teeth look like Fiver's.
>> > (10) That Le, La shit really begins to piss you off after a while.
>>
>> Oh my...
>>
>> Natalie
>
> Plus an otherwise perfectly good French film (Amelie) had that weird
> dude from Fifth Element ("Gimme the cash!") in it. :)
>
He is only in the film because their first
choice - Jerry Lewis - turned down the part.
Count 1
David B. <both...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D6F1DB9...@hotmail.com...
No, that many. Most guys have two, but by a bizarre medical experiment my
sadistic Grade nine chemistry teacher performed on me I have a veritable
grape bunch of testes. I'm proud, but it is rather shocking.
You know, I think its just too early in the morning to be this weird, either
that or I'm getting soft.
R H Menzel
news:akj061$1j7qkp$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> Nay. My reasons are simple
>
> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> against it.
The International Community are a bunch of opportunistic parasites.
> 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
Muslims will never be that united. Most of Israeli intelligence comes from
Muslim "traitors". If you can't get a Muslim to hate unconditionally
Israel....
> 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
I don't want him to have it, or even be on his way to having one.
> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
Who cares about them!?
>
> The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous.
I guess he wasn't being aggressive with Kuwait
> I agree, but let him make the first move.
Militarily, it is not advantageous to counter attacks.
> Then a retaliatory attack would
> have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
Muslims support whatever they want to believe. If they were "moral" they
would've denounced the attack on September 11th.
The "moral high ground" is whatever the victor says it is.
Mark Stahl
"Empress of The Unknown" <jupit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98e7c405.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Count 1" wrote:
>
> > > Derailing terrorists and those who fuel them will be better for our
> > > planet. We (meaning all nations and peoples) share this little ball of
> > > rock floating out in the middle of nowhere. We're all stuck here
> > > together for the time being, so we have to take care of our home and
> > > tend to it as needed. If you sit in a little box and "stay out of"
> > > what goes on around you, "outside" problems are bound to affect you.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> It sort of reminds me of WWII. So many people were killed in those
> camps by the time we got into the war. There's a lesson to be learned
> from that. I don't mean in every situation we should automatically go
> Rambo. But we have to get actively involved in world affairs.
>
i agree we should be actively involved in world affairs, but the lesson we
(should have) learned is that it's much easier to prevent conflicts or the
genesis of terrorism by dealing with their underlying causes than by being
eventually forced into armed conflict. once that happens, it's too late (as
you mentioned, there were already people killed in the camps).
so if you mean being actively involved in world affairs to keep harsh
postwar conditions from leading to the rise of a Hitler in the first place,
i say yes, of course. if you mean being actively involved in the world to
alleviate severe poverty, the hopelessness of being forced from your home,
and the mistreatment of minority groups with the severe jealousy of the
first world that is engendered by those things i again say yes.
if by "involved" you mean sitting on the sidelines or occasionally profiting
from those conditions when it's convenient until they explode, and then
start invading and killing people when they get too out of hand, i will have
to disagree.
the problem is not that we're not involved in world affairs, it's that we
are involved in the wrong ways such that we actively encourage terrorists
when they suit our purposes or that we do not step in to help alleviate the
conditions that lead to people turning to violence as a way of life.
-snip-
>
> > Time will tell.
>
> Time isn't reliable. I'm disturbed and admittedly scared everytime I
> see more turmoil breaking out in the Middle East or things becoming
> more heated and volatile. It feels like the earth is a pot of lightly
> boiling water and a bunch of pyromaniac toddlers are over in that part
> of the world fiddling with the temperature dials. It freaks me out. I
> don't know about you, but I don't want to wait to get burned before
> taking action; I'm sick of seeing so many innocents--victims and
> families--scarred from all this. If we can keep those hands away from
> those dials, let's do it.
so you think that no innocent civilians will be "scarred" if the U.S.
invades Iraq? i am afraid your view of war is hardly realistic.
BTR1701
<ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
Then why don't you go take a tour of the Middle East since they don't
consider Americans infidels or enemies?
R H Menzel
encountered, yet.
Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:akj061$1j7qkp$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> Nay. My reasons are simple
>
> 1) The International community has not signed up - in fact most have
spoken
> against it.
> 2) It will unite the Arab / Muslim world against the US
> 3) Saying he might have 'the bomb' is very different than proving it.
> 4) There is no evidence that affecting a regime change will create a
better
> situation for Iraqis or Iraq's neighbors.
>
> The argument for the pro side is based on the premise that Saddam is
> aggressive, and Saddam with WMD's would be aggressive and dangerous. I
> agree, but let him make the first move. Then a retaliatory attack would
> have the moral highground and be supported by the Arab / muslim world.
Count 1
R H Menzel <rhme...@brainlink.com> wrote in message
news:3d6f...@news.starnetinc.com...
> BTW, thanks for starting one of the most thought-provoking threads I've
> encountered, yet.
You're welcome.
Mitchell Holman
> In article <Xns927A52ED1...@204.127.202.16>, Mitchell Holman
> <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> >> No. He invaded Kuwait the the US attacked him. I would think he
might
>> >> be a little pissy in that case.
>> >
>> > Well, fuck him, he deserved it! If he attacked Kuwait, he can
attack
>> > anyone. We can't give him the opportunity.
>> >
>>
>> Why is that our concern? I don't recall the
>> US getting huffy when Libya invaded Chad
>
> Nobody cares about those countries anyway.
>
>> , or when
>> Vietnam invaded Cambodia
>
> Ditto.
>
>> , or when Tanzania invaded
>> Uganda,
>
> Ditto.
>
>> or when Somalia invaded Ethiopia.
>
> Never seen Black Hawk Down, have we?
>>
>> Oh, wait - none of those invaded countries had
>> OIL or business ties to US politicians.
>
> It's not just our oil, it's everyone's oil.
>
So you admit that this "attack Iraq"
fever is all about oil.
Well, that's a start, anyway........