Rebuild Iraq yourselves, you bastards ....
The State of Alberta
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It is
the moral thing to do.
But then you Canucks are the most immoral people alive. You told 2.5
million Albertans their human rights were less important than the need for
Ontarians' gas guzzlers - hence the National Energy Policy.
Thank God you canucks are not in Iraq - one week of your government and
they'd pray for Saddam.
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council" simply
could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business attacking
> 'with or without UN support'.
Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it will
be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in debts?
Alberta secedes.
The State of Alberta
> (K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
> the 'moral thing'.
> Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
> to get the hell out of their country.
And you genocide loving leftwingers are all hugs and kisses? Nonsense.
> (K): Aw, stop whining, American. It's none of your business what we do
> in any province in Canada.
It matters to the people of that "province" (a term of subjection). They
paid for your luxury with their jobs, homes, businesses and futures.
Pinochet was arrested for less - Trudeau's cabinet of that era must be
arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. Otherwise your beloved
international court, set up by one of the criminals behind the NEP Lloyd
Axworthy (a Princeton grad no less), is meaningless.
> (K): They're already missing Saddam - and it's your Americans and the
Brits
> who are occupying their land.
Yes thank goodness they're missing Saddam.
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> > could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
>
> (K): The UN never gave any approval to anyone to invade Iraq. THAT
> particular lie won't wash anywhere - not even in your very dumb United
> States.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own resolution -
supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN refused to do -
back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the US and its
allies than to the UN.
> (K): Then why are you pleading for help? Your arrogance starting to slip
> a little as your boys get blown to bits?
Because the Coalition is stretched too thin to garrison and rebuild the
whole country. They need the assistance of a country that prides itself on
wasting its young men in squalid countries for decades: Canada, which did
that in Yugoslavia and Cyprus. Instead you sent your boys to Afghanistan.
Have fun.
> (K): Canada will decide if any province 'secedes'. You Americans have
> got your hands full in Iraq, it seems.
Alberta's future is Alberta's affair - Ontario has no power there, unless
you want to send your troops to occupy Alberta. In that case, what the
Coalition is going through in Iraq will seem tame by comparison.
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
is
> the moral thing to do.
Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
> > You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> > the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> > hell as a result of this request ......
>
> The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
> > (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> > the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> > you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> > you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> > 'with or without UN support'.
>
> Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it
will
> be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in debts?
But why are you there?
Where are the WMD?
-TheMan-
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
> Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own resolution -
> supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN refused to
do -
> back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the US and its
> allies than to the UN.
Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
-TheMan-
Anonymust.
except the Salvos believe in morals.
Hope this helps, Karen.
http://randomprose.journalspace.com
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
> ________________
>
>
> US 'needs help in Iraq'
>
> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its
> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
>
> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.
>
> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the
> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious
> threat to American troops. <=====
>
> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy
> on Iraq.
>
> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might
> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
>
> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving
> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
>
> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30
> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> day.
>
> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the
> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital
> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.
>
> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the
> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been
> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
>
> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed
> them at risk of attack.
>
> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American
> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> although there were no injuries reported.
>
> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> airport.
>
> 'Share the burden'
>
> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the
> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime -
> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
>
> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
>
> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
>
> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key
> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
>
> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next
> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> thorough plan to win the peace.
>
> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
>
> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal
> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
>
> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
>
> Reluctance
>
> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit
> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
>
> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the
> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
>
> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going
> to be committed," he told CNN.
>
> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
>
> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
>
> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi
> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
>
> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> anticipated.
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3058469.stm
> _________________________________
>
> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business attacking
> 'with or without UN support'.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Bush is proof that empty warheads can be dangerous
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The State of Alberta
"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:iuKPa.1355$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
The stated aims from the start were to end the Saddam regime and destroy its
weapons of mass destruction. Control over oil was not a political
objective, but it was a military one because of the experience in Gulf I
where Kuwait's oilfields were set on fire to thwart the Coalition forces.
In Gulf II, this objective was rapidly attained at minimal cost in human
lives or enviromental damage. Score one for the good guys.
> No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
> Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
Because the UN could not agree on whether to do it or not - they refuse to
be rushed, which simply proves how far behind they are.
> The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
> gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
UNSC Resolution 1441, supported by all 15 members of the Security Council,
said that Iraq was in material breech, and were supported by the inspectors.
That same resolution warned Iraq of serious consequences should they not
adhere to it. They didn't, and the Coalition acted. The UN simply wanted
to waste more time and refused to give its support to enforcing its own
resolutions. The situation demanded action, something that bureaucrats can
never offer. The Coalition did what had to be done, and history has proven
them correct. The UN may not fare so well.
> But why are you there?
>
> Where are the WMD?
Where's Saddam? These questions will be answered soon enough, hopefully
before the UN decides what to do with itself.
In the mean time, Iraq will be rebuilt by the Coalition troops from the UK,
Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia,
the Ukraine, and the United States, and international aid agencies. The
world does not have the time to deal with a backwards-looking bureaucracy li
ke the UN, and countries like France or Canada.
The State of Alberta
> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is no.
> Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
> enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
They may have, reluctantly, complied until 1998, but after that the UN made
several unsuccessful attempts to get them to comply.
Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for all, with help
from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
Dictators must be dealt with - they cannot be coddled and appeased, for we
know that never works.
pigskin
You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
confiscating Iraqi oil
and using it for their own purposes.
The war is "all about oil" you have said.
Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for the
war and
the rebuilding of Iraq.
So where is all this money from Iraqi oil? It is about oil is it not, or
were you just kidding?
Ivan Satori
Quite clearly they did not. Even Blix' report says that. You might
want to read it some day.
The State of Alberta
> (K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So the answer
> is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
They left because Iraq obstructed their efforts to inspect their weapons
programs - so they answer is no, Iraq resisted the UN's lawful attempts to
enforce Security Council resolutions. They may have put the some of the
final nails in the UN's coffin.
> (K): Who made the U.S. the supreme authority on what was good for the
> countries of the world?
Cowardly countries like Canada that hid behind the UN made the US and its
allies the agents of humanity.
> Bush himself is a dictator.
He was elected by the people of the United States in a closely contested but
legally settled election.
> What would you say to France and Germany and Russia and Canada getting
together and invading
> the U.S. - taking out several thousand of your citizens along the way to
> the White House?
I would say "ha" because it could never happen. It would be fun to watch
those soldiers marched down Constitution Avenue as prisoners while Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and General Myers smiled.
> The only people who have a right to remove a dictator from their country
> are the people of that country themselves. If they cannot do it, they
> deserve to live under that dictator. Bush included.
Spoken like someone who prefers to stand aside and criticize, rather than
take a risk to effect change. No wonder the left is dead.
The State of Alberta
> (K): If they did that, the people of the world would likely mass and
destroy the
> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands.
LOL. That would be the day. Remember what Churchill wrote:
"The story of the Second Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and
Commons, landlords and merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops and
presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English fleet, all
now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot."
America would destroy them and make it look easy. This "opposition" lacks
any form of leadership, organization or strength.
> The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
Iraq's oil belongs to its people, much like Alberta's belongs to its people.
Once Iraq's petroleum industry is restored to capacity, the revenues will be
used to not only restore Iraq but improve it. It is amazing what happens
when developing nations do not spend all their money on arms like Saddam
did.
The Coalition needs assistance in the technical reconstruction of Iraq, and
is receiving such help from Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Italy,
Bulgaria, the Ukraine, the Netherlands and Slovakia, in addition to those
who took part in the War, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and the
Czech Republic. Civilian aid agencies are also helping.
> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
> clean up after you.
It appears that many countries are willing to help the Iraqi people recover
from the Saddam regime. This is just like a rich Ontarian (who made their
fortune in America no less) to ignore the plight of those who do not share
their world view. Since you did not stand up for yourselves, you cannot
criticize anyone for doing what was necessary. Canada's reputation as a
country of cowardly freeloaders has been reinforced.
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:iuKPa.1355$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
>
>
> The stated aims from the start were to end the Saddam regime
Rubbish. The stated aims were ONLY to do with WMD. The
recent change in their language DOES NOT justify their lies
at the outset.
and destroy its
> weapons of mass destruction. Control over oil was not a political
> objective, but it was a military one because of the experience in Gulf I
> where Kuwait's oilfields were set on fire to thwart the Coalition forces.
> In Gulf II, this objective was rapidly attained at minimal cost in human
> lives or enviromental damage. Score one for the good guys.
>
>
>>No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
>>Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
>
>
> Because the UN could not agree on whether to do it or not - they refuse to
> be rushed, which simply proves how far behind they are.
>
>
>>The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
>>gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
>
>
> UNSC Resolution 1441, supported by all 15 members of the Security Council,
> said that Iraq was in material breech, and were supported by the inspectors.
>
> That same resolution warned Iraq of serious consequences should they not
> adhere to it. They didn't, and the Coalition acted. The UN simply wanted
> to waste more time and refused to give its support to enforcing its own
> resolutions. The situation demanded action,
CRAP. As we saw during the invasion Iraq couldn't have even
posed a threat to their nearest neighbours let alone the US.
something that bureaucrats can
> never offer. The Coalition did what had to be done, and history has proven
> them correct. The UN may not fare so well.
>
>
>>But why are you there?
>>
>>Where are the WMD?
>
>
> Where's Saddam? These questions will be answered soon enough, hopefully
> before the UN decides what to do with itself.
>
> In the mean time, Iraq will be rebuilt by the Coalition troops from the UK,
> Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia,
> the Ukraine, and the United States, and international aid agencies. The
> world does not have the time to deal with a backwards-looking bureaucracy li
> ke the UN, and countries like France or Canada.
The US has been undermining the UN for decades. This stands
in stark contrast with their SUPPORT of Saddam for 20 years.
THEY provided the training, resources and support that made
him the monster he became.
>
>
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
>>(K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
>>the 'moral thing'.
>>Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
>>to get the hell out of their country.
>
>
> And you genocide loving leftwingers are all hugs and kisses? Nonsense.
Excuse me, it's the US that's been killing kids for profit.
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
Only dictators in oil rich countries though!
And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
US's golden haired darling in the middle east. Their track
record is one of extreme tolerence toward even the most evil
bastards.
>
>
Greg
pigskin wrote:
> Let me get this straight.
> You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
> confiscating Iraqi oil
> and using it for their own purposes.
> The war is "all about oil" you have said.
>
> Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for the
> war and
> the rebuilding of Iraq.
Who do you think has to pay for the contracts GW amBush
awarded to all his buddies?
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo21t$oss$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
>>(K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So the answer
>>is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
>
>
> They left because Iraq obstructed their efforts to inspect their weapons
> programs - so they answer is no, Iraq resisted the UN's lawful attempts to
> enforce Security Council resolutions. They may have put the some of the
> final nails in the UN's coffin.
They left because of the imminent invasion by the troika of
the willing.
fasgnadh
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
As one of the majority of Australians against the illegal oil war,
who were betraysed by our P.M., R. Slicker, Bush's lap-puppy,
I feel aggrieved that all of my fellow Australians will have to
bear the costs. The international shame, the emnity, the damage
to our reputation (this is the first time in our history a corrupt
government has dragged us into a pre-emptive war of aggression! )
the suffering we have inflicted, and now face, is more than enough
pain to bear, to have to pay for this mess is insufferable!
I believe a warmonger levy should be imposed. It is the only fair
way for those who wanted this filthy war to bear the cost. Of course
the number who openly support the war is already shrinking, and
the liars who would kill tens of thousands based on no more than
a flimsy fabrication are also likely to be immoral shirkers.
To ensure the guilty are targeted, the levy should be made on
the ruling coalition parties.
Only by punishing those responsible for the crime will we ensure
repetition is less likely.
Our government is has also been lent on to sign exemptions preventing
USSA citizens from being extradited for trial before the International
Court. This attempt to protect the guilty should also be immediately
overturned.
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
Especially as the USSA is backing away from the role it usurped from
the world nations collective body, the UN. Liberia is apparently
not going to receive the sort of massive intervention the lucky Iraqi's
received.. no oil! B^p
> ________________
>
>
> US 'needs help in Iraq'
>
> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its
> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
>
CNN cable TV reported the first survey showing Bush was losing majority
support on Iraq. It showed them concerned at the mounting death toll,
expecting it to get worse, unhappy at the way things are going in Iraq,
believing that there had been dishonesty over WMD's and that the USSA
had been damaged by the war.
The sheeple are waking up. A damn sight quicker than in Vietnam, too.
> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.
>
What a humialiating backdown.
After all the damage they have done, undermining the UN and
splitting NATO unity! B^p
> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the
> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious
> threat to American troops. <=====
>
There certainly hasn't been any improvement in 'security'.
It only deteriorates when you create tens of thousands
of new widows and orphans, dead and maimed.
You can't bomb your way to security. That should have been
apparent on Sept 11. Trillions of dollars and massive military
arsenals do not make you safe.
The USSA should all go see Bowling for Columbine to get
a basic understanding that a nation of armed nuerotics makes for
the highest domestic mudrer rate (outside Liberia?)
Not for peace and security!
> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy
> on Iraq.
>
The wind is changing. There are no more TV special effects, no
computer generated strategy arrows thrusting forward. It's death, anarchy,
international loathing and a huge, choking BILL! B^p
> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might
> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
>
> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving
> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
>
I feel sorry for the soldiers, they are political pawns of Emperor Bush
and the oil cartel.
> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30
> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> day.
You can't kill people, destroy their infrastructure, bring joblessness,
anarchy, disorder, pillage of their heritage and their oil, deny them
democracy and install a puppet regime, shoot them if they protest,
and expect them to love you.
> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the
> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital
> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.
>
> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the
> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been
> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
>
> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed
> them at risk of attack.
>
Pretty much how Brits and Aussies feel.
> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American
> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> although there were no injuries reported.
>
> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> airport.
>
> 'Share the burden'
>
> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the
> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime -
> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
>
> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
>
At least there is some process of accountability underway in the UK
and USSA! In Australia the government and it's compliant media
are whitewashing the the whole fiasco. The public seems stupefied.
> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
>
Gee thanks. Howard traded with Saddam right up untill following
the Sherrif as part of the Petroleum Posse. That shows how much
he saw Iraq as a threat! B^p Now we have lost Billion dollar markets,
such as wheat, taken by our 'partners' the 2000lb economic Gorillas! B^p
Apparently they are going to give us a 'Trade Agreement" as soon
as our sphincters are stretched.
NAFTA - Not Another Fuckover by Trade with America.
> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key
> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
>
> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next
> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> thorough plan to win the peace.
>
Hey, they secured the oil and Secret Police ministries!
> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
>
Leaving already?
> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal
> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
>
Shame and humiliation?
> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
>
> Reluctance
>
> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit
> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
>
What a surprise. From mammoth world support post-S11, to pariah.
People fear an Imperial regime, they don't like it.
> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the
> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
>
> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going
> to be committed," he told CNN.
>
> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
>
> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
>
> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi
> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
>
With Bushs tax cuts for teh rich, services for ordinary Americans
will have to be slashed to pay for the oil plutocrats adventures.
> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> anticipated.
>
Shit, for $3.9 Billion a month we could have solved world hunger,
relocated the Palestinians to the Costa del Sol, and hired an army
of M.E. bounty hunters to bring in Osama, and still hade change
to build a decent healthcare system for Americans.
Nothing like full bellies, no-one shooting at you and cable TV
to quell an uprising! B^p
Stupid republicans.
Terry Pearson
it's Alberta that decides
--
Terry Pearson
The philosophy of socialism equates to
poverty thinking. The rich get rich and
the poor get poor. They both planned it
that way.
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com
The Daily Blog
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com/blog.html
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
> >> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> >> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your
bloody
> >> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> >> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get.
It is
> > the moral thing to do.
>
> (K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
> the 'moral thing'.
> Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
> to get the hell out of their country.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > But then you Canucks are the most immoral people alive. You told 2.5
> > million Albertans their human rights were less important than the need
for
> > Ontarians' gas guzzlers - hence the National Energy Policy.
>
> (K): Aw, stop whining, American. It's none of your business what we do
> in any province in Canada.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Thank God you canucks are not in Iraq - one week of your government and
> > they'd pray for Saddam.
>
> (K): They're already missing Saddam - and it's your Americans and the
Brits
> who are occupying their land.
>
> >> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> >> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> >> hell as a result of this request ......
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> > could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
>
> (K): The UN never gave any approval to anyone to invade Iraq. THAT
> particular lie won't wash anywhere - not even in your very dumb United
> States.
>
> >> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> >> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> >> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> >> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> >> 'with or without UN support'.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it
will
> > be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in
debts?
>
> (K): Then why are you pleading for help? Your arrogance starting to slip
> a little as your boys get blown to bits?
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Alberta secedes.
>
> (K): Canada will decide if any province 'secedes'. You Americans have
> got your hands full in Iraq, it seems.
>
Robert
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
is
> the moral thing to do.
>
The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
Paul Moore
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in
message news:59IPa.44108
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask
"the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for
your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting
masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's
pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they
can get. It is
> the moral thing to do.
Don't be an idiot! Who cares about the Iraqi people!? Certainly
not Karen Gordon! As far as she is concerned every dead Iraqi
child is only one more triumphant statistic to use in her
endless, bigoted, anti-American posts. If Iraq became a paradise
on Earth no one would be more horrified than Karen Gordon. Of
course, she'd just find some other reason to hatre Americans.
Paul Moore
"Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DBTPa.263$0j4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
The moral thing to do is just ignore what was happening and lead
out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
rights abuses in Iraq? Whatever PR moves were made before the
war, whatever lies were told, the people there are better off now
than they were, and will undoubtedly soon be much better off.
Paul Moore
"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
message
> news:1PIPa.441437$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
> >
> > Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own
resolution -
> > supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN
refused to
> do -
> > back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the
US and its
> > allies than to the UN.
>
> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access
and disarm
> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to allow
it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
Paul Moore
"Greg" <gwa...@ilse.net.au> wrote in message
news:3F0FCA3C...@ilse.net.au...
>
>
> The State of Alberta wrote:
> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> > news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for
all, with help
> > from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
> >
> > Dictators must be dealt with - they cannot be coddled and
appeased, for we
> > know that never works.
>
> Only dictators in oil rich countries though!
Unfortunately yes. This is certainly hypocritical, but is it
immoral? Isn't it better to remove at least a few dictators, even
if it's out of self interest, than to remove none? Wars are
hugely expensive in every coin you can think of. Small wonder
there has to be tremendous justification for a country to involve
itself in one.
> And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
> US's golden haired darling in the middle east.
In another universe, perhaps, but not this one. This is pure
hyperbole. Hussein was never a US ally. He was, if anything, a
Soviet ally for most of his reign. Why do you think all his
weapons were Soviet built? The US and gulf states merely helped
prop him up during his fighting with Iran, in effect, supporting
the lesser Satan against the Great Satan.
Paul Moore
access and disarm
> >> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
>
no.
>
the answer
> is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
Your ignorance is showing again. Iraq did throw the UN out
several years ago, and only reluctantly allowed them back in with
US and UK troops on their border poised to attack. They then did
everything they could to resist the requirements of the
inspection team, including threatening scientists with death and
the death of their families if they spoke to them without their
Iraqi state police minders present.
> (K): Who made the U.S. the supreme authority on what was good
for the
> countries of the world?
Well, someone has to be. Clearly we can't trust hysterical, hate
filled ideologues like you.
> Bush himself is a dictator.
The term is reserved for people who hold power without the
consent of their people, not those who aren't vicious bigots from
the far left like Karen Gordon.
> The only people who have a right to remove a dictator from
their country
> are the people of that country themselves. If they cannot do
it, they
> deserve to live under that dictator.
And once again Karen Gordon shows how caring she is about the
poor and miserable of the world living under the brutal heel of
vicious, raping, torturing, murdering dictators. This is what I
despise about ideologues like Gordon. They care nothing at all
about people. They care only about their ideological constracts
and fanatically held political beliefs. Stalin was like that,
killed millions without a thought just to bring about his
political constructs. Gordon is in that mold, just dumber, lazier
and without the neccesary charisma to ever achieve anything in
life.
Erik Trammel
Karen Gordon wrote:
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers.
Irrational anti-U.S. rant has been deleted.
Why should the U.S. be required to rebuild Iraq since
the country has been in decline ever since Saddam Hussein
took power and started emulating his heroes, Lenin, Stalin and
Hitler. Iraq's run down condition today is not the fault of the
U.S. but of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.
What Islamic nation today is in relatively good shape? Certainly
not Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployment or Iran with a 60% fall in its
standard of living since the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia are all
impoverished nations. We could add Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen,
Lebanon, Pakistan and even Turkey which is turning to Islamic
fundamentalism.
In my opinion Iraq cannot be "rebuilt" and Americans should not even
attempt this daunting task. Just as UN Secretary Kofi Anan recently
blamed Africans themselves for their current plight, Islam is to blame
for its squalor. Giving taxpayers' money to Arab or other Muslim states
is a useless gesture, just as the recent U.S. grant of $20 million to
Arafat's and Abbas' PLA is simply money down the toilet.
The State of Alberta
"Erik Trammel" <tra...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F101B73...@rogers.com...
> Irrational anti-U.S. rant has been deleted.
Thank you!
> Why should the U.S. be required to rebuild Iraq since
> the country has been in decline ever since Saddam Hussein
> took power and started emulating his heroes, Lenin, Stalin and
> Hitler. Iraq's run down condition today is not the fault of the
> U.S. but of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.
Iraq should be rebuilt to restore the country to working order, and to
foster the development of a stable, democratic, and prosperous country and
people. We did the same after WWII in Europe and Asia and it worked.
> What Islamic nation today is in relatively good shape? Certainly
> not Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployment or Iran with a 60% fall in its
> standard of living since the fall of the Shah in 1979.
> Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia are all
> impoverished nations. We could add Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen,
> Lebanon, Pakistan and even Turkey which is turning to Islamic
> fundamentalism.
Now is the chance to introduce such concepts to the Arab world.
> In my opinion Iraq cannot be "rebuilt" and Americans should not even
> attempt this daunting task. Just as UN Secretary Kofi Anan recently
> blamed Africans themselves for their current plight, Islam is to blame
> for its squalor. Giving taxpayers' money to Arab or other Muslim states
> is a useless gesture, just as the recent U.S. grant of $20 million to
> Arafat's and Abbas' PLA is simply money down the toilet.
Dictatorship is more responsible than Islam - without any incentive to
distribute the wealth to the people, extreme hatred has been allowed to
develop and we saw the effects on 9-11. (There is an obvious parallel to
the Ontarian/Non-Ontarian relationship in Canada here). If Iraq can be
transformed into a developed secular state, then the way can be shown to the
Arabs that terrorism is not the way. Hey - we convinced Europe that fascism
and communism were terrible, and they seemed to catch on.
TheMan
"Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ToUPa.14201$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DBTPa.263$0j4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in
> message
> > news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't
> ask "the UN"
> > > > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay
> for your bloody
> > > > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting
> masses to pay
> > > > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's
> pockets.
> > >
> > > What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they
> can get. It
> > is
> > > the moral thing to do.
> > >
> >
> > The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
> The moral thing to do is just ignore what was happening and lead
> out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
> rights abuses in Iraq?
Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the AVERAGE middle
eastern tin-pot dictator. Only difference with this tin pot dictator is that
the USA wasn't friends with him.
Jordan, Saudia Arabia, etc etc all have human right abusers running the
show, yet not a peep about their human rights abuses cos they are friends
with the USA. It's funny you guys take the humanitarian excuse as a way out
when your caught out about your Oil War and the WMD lies.
-TheMan-
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
> > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
>
> They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is no.
Resolution 1441 was introduced in 2002 you dumbfuck. Hence they complied.
> > Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
> > enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
>
> They may have, reluctantly, complied until 1998, but after that the UN
made
> several unsuccessful attempts to get them to comply.
>
> Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for all, with
help
> from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
Bush lied, and invaded for Oil, and now has been caught out.
Now lets do another multiple choice question shall we:
Q. When did the USA stop being friends with Iraq, was it:
a) When he was attacking Iran with chemical weapons
b) When he abused, killed, tortured and abused the people in his country
c) When he attacked the USA's other ally, Kuwait.
Hypocrisy from morons like you who refuse to look at the full history make
me laugh.
-TheMan-
TheMan
"Ivan Satori" <isa...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:26a55c7f.03071...@posting.google.com...
I did. It said Iraq was being pro-active in disarment, and only a few minor
issues remained.
Maybe you should stop reading shit on Fox news and come back to the real
world.
-TheMan-
TheMan
Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had provided all
documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
You can't say they didn't comply, when they allowed unfettered access and
have no WMD. They were disarmed, they complied and Bush lied.
-TheMan-
TheMan
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo21t$oss$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered
> access and disarm
> > >> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> >
> > "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > > They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is
> no.
> >
> > (K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So
> the answer
> > is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
>
> Your ignorance is showing again. Iraq did throw the UN out
> several years ago, and only reluctantly allowed them back in with
> US and UK troops on their border poised to attack.
Provide evidence of your lie please.
Here's evidence of the truth, I'll be waiting for you to show evidence of
your LIES:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
Will be happy to post many more links about this subject if you wish to get
educated on the truth. Iraq NEVER kicked the UN out, the UN pulled it's
weapons inspectors out before a coalition bombing of the country in 1998.
Please apologise to the newsgroup for spreading bullshit lies.
-TheMan-
Phoenix Rising
Erik,
It's true that most people always bring problems on themselves and
then find ways to blame others; Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats
blame Republicans, Muslims blame Jews, the Third World blames the First
World, liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals,
French blame civilized countries, etc.
That being said, it is in our interests to ensure that Iraqi
reconstruction is a success story because doing so will legitimize the
strategy and doctrine we used in embarking on this course of action in
the first place. At the end of the day, theoretical and philosophical
arguments are fun and entertaining, but it's results that count. By
successfully reconstructing Iraq, we make the strategy of preemption and
regime change that much more effective because it increases the
credibility of the threat that we might use it again. This is why
anti-American bigots like Karen are so desperate to see us fail,
whatever disastrous consequences that might visit upon the Iraqi people.
Watching the country collapse into fundamentalism would be well worth
it in her mind because anything that makes America look bad is, in her
warped reality, a good thing. If half the world's population would die
but it could somehow be blamed on America, she'd be all for letting it
happen.
A strong Iraq is in America's interests now the same way a strong
West Germany was in America's interests following WWII. A weak Iraq is
in Karen's interests the same way a weak West Germany was in her Soviet
forebears' interests following WWII.
--Phoenix Rising
Paul Moore
lead
> > out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
> > rights abuses in Iraq?
>
> Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the AVERAGE
middle
> eastern tin-pot dictator.
Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
Paul Moore
>
> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
>
news:2rUPa.14218$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
.
access
> > and disarm
> > > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> >
> > Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
> > continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to
allow
> > it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
> > information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
>
> Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
provided all
> documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to speak
honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police. The Iraqi
government threatened to kill any scientist, and their families,
who agreed. That is more than enough to violate the UN demands.
>
> You can't say they didn't comply,
Yeah, I can.
Greg
Paul Moore
>
> Here's evidence of the truth, I'll be waiting for you to show
evidence of
> your LIES:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
>
> Will be happy to post many more links about this subject if you
wish to get
> educated on the truth.
I guess you're one of those frenzied, wild eyed lunatic types you
occasionally run into on usenet who sees the entire world in
terms of various bizarre conspiracies, right? You read whatever
you like into anything and damned what it actually says? The link
you pasted shows Iraq refusing again and again to cooperate,
culminating in the gulf war.
But hey, if you're a bug-eyed screwball I guess you can believe
whatever you like, right?
Tell me, do you wear tinfoil on your head to foil (pun intended)
alien mind reading rays?
Paul Moore
>>Paul Moore wrote:
>>>And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
>>>US's golden haired darling in the middle east.
>>In another universe, perhaps, but not this one. This is pure
>>hyperbole. Hussein was never a US ally. He was, if anything, a
>>Soviet ally for most of his reign. Why do you think all his
>>weapons were Soviet built? The US and gulf states merely helped
>>prop him up during his fighting with Iran, in effect,
supporting
>>the lesser Satan against the Great Satan.
>Other examples then - Marcos, Pinochet. The US support, and
often creates, these monsters. They will only interdict if >they
have something to gain. Now they know they can LIE to justify
invasion nobody is safe. They cannot be trusted.
First, Marcos and Pinochet were in a time of superpower
confrontation. It can be argued that supporting them was immoral.
It can also be argued that it was realpolitik, of supporting the
enemy of their enemy - our enemy, by the way - in order to defend
themselves (and us) from Soviet expansionism and imperialism. In
that context what they did is probably somewhat forgiveable, at
least from the viewpoint of history.
As for lying to justify invasions, well, the more you do it the
harder it gets. I think the US government would have to have
tremendous evidence in order to convince its people, never mind
anyone else, of the need of another pre-emptive war.
BTW, everyone continues to assume there were no WMDs. I am not
convinced. Most of the top Iraqi leadership is still missing,
likely gone across the border to Syria and Iran. There's no
reason to believe a lot of material didn't go with them by the
tractor trailor full.
pigskin
So you still have not explained how the US will make money from Iraqi oil
and at the same time need to get money from the US taxpayer.
Its one or the other but not both.
A gross error in logic.
But then again why do I bother.
Illogical statements are your hallmark.
Keep you day job. If you have one.
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beo7da$9lv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "pigskin" (a...@b.com) writes:
> > Let me get this straight.
> > You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
> > confiscating Iraqi oil
> > and using it for their own purposes.
> > The war is "all about oil" you have said.
>
> (K): I've always said it was about oil. I have never said the Americans
> were going to start selling Iraqi oil right away to make money. If they
> did that, the people of the world would likely mass and destroy the
> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands. The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
>
> "pigskin" (a...@b.com) writes:
> > Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for
the
> > war and
> > the rebuilding of Iraq.
> > So where is all this money from Iraqi oil? It is about oil is it not,
or
> > were you just kidding?
>
> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
> clean up after you.
>
>
> > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> >> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your
bloody
> >> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> >> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
> >>
> >> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> >> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> >> hell as a result of this request ......
> >> ________________
> >>
> >>
> >> US 'needs help in Iraq'
> >>
> >> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over
its
> >> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
> >>
> >> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> >> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding
Iraq.
> >>
> >> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of
the
> >> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a
serious
> >> threat to American troops. <=====
> >>
> >> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> >> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's
policy
> >> on Iraq.
> >>
> >> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> >> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces
might
> >> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
> >>
> >> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers
serving
> >> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
> >>
> >> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than
30
> >> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> >> day.
> >>
> >> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in
the
> >> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the
capital
> >> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence
there.
> >>
> >> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at
the
> >> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have
been
> >> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
> >>
> >> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> >> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces
placed
> >> them at risk of attack.
> >>
> >> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an
American
> >> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> >> although there were no injuries reported.
> >>
> >> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> >> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> >> airport.
> >>
> >> 'Share the burden'
> >>
> >> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported
the
> >> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's
regime -
> >> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
> >>
> >> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> >> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> >> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
> >>
> >> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> >> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
> >>
> >> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany -
key
> >> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
> >>
> >> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency
next
> >> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> >> thorough plan to win the peace.
> >>
> >> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> >> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
> >>
> >> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence
Committee,
> >> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a
formal
> >> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
> >>
> >> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> >> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
> >>
> >> Reluctance
> >>
> >> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to
commit
> >> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about
the
> >> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
> >>
> >> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are
going
> >> to be committed," he told CNN.
> >>
> >> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> >> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
> >>
> >> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
> >>
> >> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> >> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that
Iraqi
> >> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
> >>
> >> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> >> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> >> anticipated.
> >>
> >> Story from BBC NEWS:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3058469.stm
> >> _________________________________
> >>
> >> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> >> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> >> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> >> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> >> 'with or without UN support'.
>
Niloc
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo7da$9lv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>> (K): If they did that, the people of the world would likely mass and
> destroy the
>> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands.
>
> LOL. That would be the day. Remember what Churchill wrote:
>
> "The story of the Second Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and
> Commons, landlords and merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops
> and presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English
> fleet, all now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot."
>
> America would destroy them and make it look easy. This "opposition" lacks
> any form of leadership, organization or strength.
You had better watch your backs because YOUR enemy doesnt care if they die
so long as they get at you. You cannot defend against that ever and it will
only be a matter of time before YOUR enemy have access to WMD. Then maybe
we might see just how much stomach you and your 'stay at home' warriors
have for carnage. I expect a few of your Iraq 'liberators' will take up the
gun when they come home and show what they are really all about.
>> The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
>> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
>> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
>> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
>> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
>
> Iraq's oil belongs to its people, much like Alberta's belongs to its
> people.
Iraq's oil belonged to it's people only when Saddaam nationalised the oil
industry and not before. Now that Saddaam is out of the way I very much
doubt wether the Seppo's will let the keys to the oil fields slip out of
their tight fisted, greedy little hands a second time.
> Once Iraq's petroleum industry is restored to capacity, the
> revenues will be
> used to not only restore Iraq but improve it. It is amazing what happens
> when developing nations do not spend all their money on arms like Saddam
> did.
So what you are saying is that the country that had the highest standard of
living, highest literacy rate, etc in the middle east under Saddaam Hussein
was reduced to third world standard because Saddaam bought weapons under
the oil for food program and this new style of genocide had nothing to do
with twelve years of sanctions that included such things as ambulances,
coffins, and dolls amongst its list of prohibited imports?
> The Coalition needs assistance in the technical reconstruction of Iraq,
> and is receiving such help from Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Italy,
> Bulgaria, the Ukraine, the Netherlands and Slovakia, in addition to those
> who took part in the War, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and the
> Czech Republic. Civilian aid agencies are also helping.
>
>> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
>> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
>> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
>> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
>> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
>> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
>> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
>> clean up after you.
>
> It appears that many countries are willing to help the Iraqi people
> recover
> from the Saddam regime.
They need to recover from the 12 year sanctions regime that destroyed the
country.
--
"When Adolf Eichmann was tried in Jerusalem in 1961 for his role
in the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis, he was accorded
the full rights of an accused person under the law of the state of Israel.
The presiding judge, Moshe Landau, said that Eichmann's case would
be conducted, like any other criminal case, in the light of the
fundamental principle that "every man is deemed to be innocent
and that his case must be tried only on the basis of the evidence
brought before the court. What was granted to Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961
will be denied to David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay in 2003." - Peter Coghlan
Julian D.
wrote:
Julian's Maxim #19:
Any time you argue and protest against the removal of a murderous
dictator, you will lose.
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering.
To those . . .who scare peace-loving people with phantoms
of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish
our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill
to remain silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals
and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America
TheMan
I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
Now again I ask, why is the USA so quiet about Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Israel
and all the other nasty little human rights abusers in the middle east?
-TheMan-
TheMan
>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:9WVPa.2147$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
> >
> news:2rUPa.14218$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
> .
> > > > Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered
> access
> > > and disarm
> > > > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> > >
> > > Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
> > > continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to
> allow
> > > it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
> > > information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
> >
> > Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
> provided all
> > documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
>
> The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
> reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to speak
> honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police.
Who's says thats the case? From what I heard the Iraqi scientists didn't
want to speak to the UN. Who says your version of the story is true?
Ohhh thats right... the Yank propaganda again. If the Yanks said it, it must
be true!
-TheMan-