For those who protesting against war

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Mohamad Ashood

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 4:50:35 PM1/20/03
to
Sadam is a murderer to his own people. He poisoned his own people. He
used chemical weapons to kill Kurds, a minority ethic group in
Northern Iraq. He killed his son-in-law despite of his daughter
insisted to save him. He is no different than Osama bin Laden. Yeah,
there are crazy people over the world blindly support his regime.
Remember that, this is dictatorship regime. That means there one man
rules, controls, and governs until he dies. No freedom. Who dares to
speak against him will be tortured and killed. A few days ago, a
group of women from US traveled to Iraq to protest the war. Of course
they were allowed. Why didn't they protest against this Iraqis
dictatorship government. Middle Easters are affraid of the war that
may destabilize the region. Well, the region has already been
unstabilized because of this guy. He supports terrorism by paying
millions to the suiside bombers that circulates violence in Middle
East. Once, Iraq has all kind of weapons of mass destruction. US
will be unable to control this mad dog. If Iraq invades its neighbor
Kuwait again, don't ever think that US can kick this guy out easily
like the Persian Gulf War in 1991. So, let's be smart and learn the
lesson in the past. This mad dog Sadam and Kim Jong Il are evils who
starve their people while looking for building weapons of mass
destruction.

GD

unread,
Jan 20, 2003, 9:47:47 PM1/20/03
to
In article <6eab77b1.03012...@posting.google.com>, moham...@yahoo.com says...

>
>Sadam is a murderer to his own people.

I dont think anyone doubts the truth of this, but the
argument you put is very much a straw man form of argument.

The anti-war movement simply *are not* claiming that Saddam
is anything but a tyrant, so for you to show that he is
one might win the argument in your mind... but doesnt
address the actual anti-war movement concerns.


cheers...

mark richards

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 7:19:02 AM1/21/03
to
Mohamad Ashood wrote:
> Sadam is a murderer to his own people. He poisoned his own people. He
> used chemical weapons to kill Kurds, a minority ethic group in
> Northern Iraq. He killed his son-in-law despite of his daughter
> insisted to save him.

ack
but using wmd again is not possible for him, this would trigger war
against him ...it would convince everybody in the world that he must be
taken out.

> He is no different than Osama bin Laden.

Saddam does these things in his own country, Bin-Laden is threatening
the whole western world.
Saddam doesn't make religious wars... christs as much a target for him
as muslims are(his son 4 example)... Bin-Laden a religious
terrorist...he attacks everything which he thinks doesn't fit into his
concept of islam.

> Yeah,
> there are crazy people over the world blindly support his regime.
> Remember that, this is dictatorship regime. That means there one man
> rules, controls, and governs until he dies.


If the people of iraq would rise up against his regime, they would
succeed... we proved this here in eastern germany, it is possible if
just enough people are fed up with the governement. Here in eastern
germany, we had the secret police(stasi)... they killed people the
regime didn't like, they spied on them... stasi spies where all over the
country...sometimes one family member spied on the other... rising up
against the regime was still possible.

> No freedom. Who dares to
> speak against him will be tortured and killed.

So US will go around the world an attack all countrys where there isn't
as much freedom as the us thinks is appropriate? Shouldn't the United
Nations(of this world) decide what is appropriate, and not just the US
on its own? Just because US is big enough to enforce its decisions,
doesn't mean it decisions are always good. The US have no right to do
this on its own.

> A few days ago, a
> group of women from US traveled to Iraq to protest the war. Of course
> they were allowed. Why didn't they protest against this Iraqis
> dictatorship government.

They simply didn't travel there to protest against saddam.
(remember GD's answer... not protesting against saddam doesn't mean they
are pro-saddam)

> Middle Easters are affraid of the war that
> may destabilize the region. Well, the region has already been
> unstabilized because of this guy. He supports terrorism by paying
> millions to the suiside bombers that circulates violence in Middle
> East.

Oh come on... the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend game... who do
you think saddam has his biological weapons from? yes, the us. the us
played the same game on several occasions in the past.
btw: the ones responsible for the palestinian-israeli problem are the
israelis and palestinians themselves. ruling israelis give a shit about
un resolutions and signed contracts with the palestinians. and most of
the palestinians simply support violence agains civilians... simply they
are both responsible for the destabilization. the palestinians seek
their support on their side(in the region) and the israelis seek support
from their friends(us)... and both get their support

> Once, Iraq has all kind of weapons of mass destruction. US
> will be unable to control this mad dog.

US is not the world-police! US should not be able to control that mad
dog on it's own. It should support the un in controling him, but us
doesn't do that properly. US says it knows iraq has wmd... iraq allowed
UN-Inspectors to come in an destroy them, but the us doesn't tell where
the wmd are hidden. So why destroying a whole country...killing many
civilians(yes, that usually happens in wars)... why that if there are
people who can(are allowed by iraq) simply walk up to the wmd-site and
destroy them?

> If Iraq invades its neighbor
> Kuwait again, don't ever think that US can kick this guy out easily
> like the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

before 1991 he wasn't under un-control, and you where able to kick him
out. in the last 13 years there where about 70 attacks on iraqi targets
carried out by coalition planes inside the no-fly-zone. if us would just
support the un-inspectors properly, he wouldn't be able to develop wmd.
result: saddam could never again be as much a threat to it's neighbors
as he was in 1991.

> So, let's be smart and learn the
> lesson in the past.

ack:
US starting wars on it's own doesn't really work out!


> This mad dog Sadam and Kim Jong Il are evils who
> starve their people while looking for building weapons of mass
> destruction.

ack, and the superpower which could really help the international
community to handle/control them properly, could help enforce sanctions,
just wants to go to war war war war war.... that can't be the proper
solution.


bye mark
berlin, germany

Hung

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 2:26:22 PM1/21/03
to
> If the people of iraq would rise up against his regime, they would
> succeed... we proved this here in eastern germany, it is possible if
> just enough people are fed up with the governement. Here in eastern
> germany, we had the secret police(stasi)... they killed people the
> regime didn't like, they spied on them... stasi spies where all over the
> country...sometimes one family member spied on the other... rising up
> against the regime was still possible.
>

Unlike Germans, Russians, East Europeans, people are well educated
even under communism. Once people stood up to overthrow the
communist, the leader (Govbachev) realized the communism must be
changed for a new type of government. Let's look at countries like
China, Vietnam, Cuba, and N. Korea. As nowadays, whoever stand up to
protest against government even in peaceful way, they will be likely
jailed or killed without fair trial. Therefore, communism seems to be
last forever in those countries. It might be the same to other
underdeveloping countries like Iraq where people have been oppressed
under a dictatorship regime.
Anyway, I am not supporting any country to go war unlateral but
rather to have approval from UN Security Council. However, be aware
of inspectors will not find any wmd. There are millions of private
citizen house in Iraq that they could hide their wmd.

mark richards

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 3:37:16 PM1/21/03
to
Hung wrote:
> Unlike Germans, Russians, East Europeans, people are well educated
> even under communism. Once people stood up to overthrow the
> communist, the leader (Govbachev) realized the communism must be
> changed for a new type of government. Let's look at countries like
> China, Vietnam, Cuba, and N. Korea. As nowadays, whoever stand up to
> protest against government even in peaceful way, they will be likely
> jailed or killed without fair trial. Therefore, communism seems to be
> last forever in those countries. It might be the same to other
> underdeveloping countries like Iraq where people have been oppressed
> under a dictatorship regime.

In eastern-germany, the former GDR, it was the same. it was a
underdeveloping country, with a communist regime, which killed people
who endangered the governements position in power. The parts of the
society which where oppose to the regime where under constant
surveillance, even from their own neighbors. if they tried to make their
protest public, they have been arrested, some where tortured and
sometimes they never came back. the only difference to saddams regime is
that the secret-police of the GDR(Stasi) were experts in doing these
things quietly. none the less, the people knew about what the stasi did,
and feared them.
one example i experienced myself:
i was about 7 years old when i asked a schoolmate if he wanted to see
the nazi-symbol (you know this cross.. i don't know how it's called in
english...in german it's "hakenkreuz")... he said "yes" so i draw it on
the side of the sheet of paper he used to make notes on... the next day
i was ordered to the principals office, and guess what happened... Like
in a bad spy-movie there was a guy with a trenchcoat i never saw before.
They questioned me about an hour about my family's daily life... what
channels does your family usually watch on tv? what radio station does
your family listen to? do your parents argue often...about what topics
do they argue? do you travel often.. where have you been travelling in
the past... things like that. I was a fuckin SEVEN years old little boy,
and i understood that this wasn't about the nazi-symbol i draw.. they
even didn't say that what i did was wrong or forbidden...
But even if things like that where common in the GDR, still the people
managed to rise up.
Latley one of the leading GDR-governement officers talked about what was
going on in the governement when the Berlin wall was about to fall. He
said that the governement had the plan that opening the gates was the
last possibility to hold governement in power... they did not understand
anything.. sure gorbatchev was called and - you are right- he denied to
give support to the gdr-gov at that time, cause he was understanding
what was going on.. but the governement themselves where working till
the last moments against their own people's will. but the people where
unstoppable... they even stormed the berlin-headquaters of the
secret-police... thats what happens if most of the citizens are really
fed up with their governemen. they rise up even if this means risking
their life. without its apparatus a governement is nothing, the people
who do what the governement wants them to do are what holds it in power.
if the people of iraq where really fed up with saddam he would be out of
business.. no matter if he's a brutal killer or not.

> Anyway, I am not supporting any country to go war unlateral but
> rather to have approval from UN Security Council. However, be aware
> of inspectors will not find any wmd. There are millions of private
> citizen house in Iraq that they could hide their wmd.

I agree, but doesn't it raise questions when you hear that bush&co say
they know for sure that saddam has these wmd? They are that sure that
they are sending six carriers and hundreds of thousands of men down
there... that much equipment.. how can they be so sure, but the UN
inspectors say at the same time "we aren't sure, and can't prove
anything yet"? There must be evidence that the US-Governement has but
the un-inspectors not... don't you agree? What i say is that the USA
must support the UN with their capabilities. Either they didn't do that
in the past(else the un-inspectors would have found and destroyed the
wmd), or there is nothing hidden and thus the USA-Governement has other
reasons to wage war on iraq...

bye mark
berlin, germany

Russil Wvong

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 3:45:58 PM1/21/03
to
mark richards <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Mohamad Ashood wrote:
> > He is no different than Osama bin Laden.
>
> Saddam does these things in his own country, Bin-Laden is threatening
> the whole western world.

For the people in Iraq, that's not a very comforting distinction.

I'm reluctant to support a war, because the risks are so great,
but it's very difficult to read descriptions of what life is like
in Iraq, and to not think that nobody should have to live like this.

Kanan Makiya, speaking in March 1996:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=31603B48.425C%40math.bu.edu

The Economist proposed a compromise that everyone might accept--
not a lifting of the ban but its suspension. This provides what
The Economist calls a way "to relax some of the pressure on
Iraq without losing the ability to restore it in full."
[The Economist, April 8, 1995].

In other words the future that is envisaged here is one of
soldiering on with the same nasty state suitably weakened and
therefore no longer a regional threat. This is what virtually
every state in the region thinks is best, including Israel
incidentally. It is what Saddam Husain himself wants, and the
underlying rationale for it is summed up in phrases like
regional stability in the case of Iran, preservation of the
existing state system in the case of the Arab countries,
commercial interests in the case of Turkey, containing the
Islamic threat from Iran in the case of Israel and so on. The
kindest thing that one can say about this scenario is that it
is cynical. More importantly, however, it is very short-sighted
and foolish in that it fails to understand what has happened
inside Iraq since and because of the Gulf war. I liken the
country to a rotting fruit on a tree which remains still firmly
attached to its branch because the degree to which the fruit
has rotted does not correspond to the weakness or strength of
the stem attaching it to the branch.

Consider, by way of illustration, how forms of punishment have
been changing over the last year or so in Iraq. Law number 109
was promulgated six weeks before President Saddam Husain began
redeploying his troops to make the world think that he was about
to do the unthinkable--invade Kuwait a second time. It reads as
follows: "According to Section 1, Article 42 of the Iraqi
Constitution, the Revolutionary Command Council has decreed
that ... the foreheads of those individuals who repeat the crime
for which their hand was cut off will be branded with a mark in
the shape of an "X." Each intersecting line will be one centimeter
in length and one millimeter in width."(2)

The crimes "for which their hand was cut off" are theft and army
desertion. Branding is restricted to repeat offenders. The law
specifies that the operation must take place at the same hospital
where the right hand was amputated at the wrist. As of the end of
last year up to two thousand brandings may have been performed on
soldiers foreheads, according to two military personnel recently
escaped to Kuwait. The Kurdish opposition radio in northern Iraq
has declared that eight hundred branded soldiers were captured by
Kurdish forces near villages along the border of the safe-haven
zone in northern Iraq.(3)

Car thieves are being singled out for prosecution on the basis of
the new laws. Iraqi newspapers reported that 36,000 cars were
stolen last year. The law, however, is unambiguous and formulated
in general terms: stealing anything worth more than 5,000 dinars--
worth roughly twelve dollars--by anyone who is not a minor, is
today punishable in Iraq first by amputation and second by branding.

Something went wrong in the case of thirty-seven year-old 'Ali
Ubaid Abed 'Ali because he had his hand amputated and his forehead
branded with an "X" for stealing a television set and 250 Iraqi
dinars (worth roughly 50 cents). 'Ali was shown on Iraqi television
on September 9, 1994, still under anaesthetic, with his bandaged
arm and closeups of his branded forehead.(4)

Amputation was introduced before branding. The earlier law (number
59, dated June 4, 1994) stated that a second offence of stealing
was punishable by severance of the left foot from the ankle. No
mention of branding. Rumours circulating in Baghdad have it that
Saddam Husain discerned a problem with this law when he
realized that disabled veterans of the two Gulf wars, who could
very well have lost a limb or two, were not differentiable from
common thieves. The honour of the country was at stake.

Cruelty has shape and form to it; how it progresses can be very
revealing of what is going on in a country. In Saddam Husain's
Iraq, in the period from the show trials of 1969 to the debacle
of the 1991 Gulf war, the politics of bodily disfigurement moved
from the public stage to the private confines of secret torturing
centers. The stronger the state got, the more secret became its
torturing practices. One always knew that one lived in a
torturing state, but its omniscience and omnipotence lay in the
total environment of secrecy which surrounded the whole operation.
Everything was secret including the arrest, the charges, the
interrogation, the extraction of the evidence, the trial, the
judgement, and the execution of the sentence. If there was a
corpse, bearing in its markings that last record of the whole
affair, even it was returned to the family in a sealed box. This
is what has changed and probably irreversibly or for a whole
historical period.

The fact is the absolutism of the system is disintegrating, more
soldiers than ever before are deserting, law and order is breaking
down in Baghdad, and even army Generals like the former head of
military intelligence, Wafiq al-Samarraie, are defecting to the
main opposition force operating out of the north--the INC. So
what is one to do? After all, you can't shoot or torture everybody.
You make examples of some people, the relatively few that you can
catch, hoping to reinstill the environment of fear that once
controlled everyone but no longer does.

The number of ways in which the state can legally publicly disfigure
the bodies of its subjects has mushroomed, and this is a sign of
weakness not strength. Depending on the crime, the foreheads of
offenders get branded with a mark in the shape of one horizontal
three to five centimetre line, or in the shape of two parallel
horizontal lines of the same dimensions, or in the shape of a
circle or an "X" as spelled out in law number 109. Army deserters,
draft dodgers, and those who shelter them, get special treatment:
the outer part of one ear is cut off for the first offence; a
repeat offence results in the second ear being cut off and so
on (unconfirmed reports from inside Iraq claim that the word,
jaban, coward, is also being branded on the forehead, and two
parallel horizontal lines three to five centimetres in length
for I know not what crime). Upon his third attempt an army deserter
is shot. This seems to be an improvement on the situation before
the passage of these new laws when the penalty for desertion was
a firing squad, instantly. In fact it is a confirmation of how
deep is the rot today inside Iraq.

Consider also the reaction to these measures inside Iraq. For they
too are signs of how far the rot has proceeded in a country with
the highest literacy levels and what used to be the most highly
developed infrastructure and services systems of anywhere in the
Middle East barring Israel. Two men whose ears had been cut off
in accordance with the laws I have just mentioned immolated
themselves in central Baghdad in the summer of 1994. Following
the murder of a doctor in the southern city of Nassirriyya by
an amputee, and the storming of the headquarters of the Ba'th party
in the city of 'Amara by a crowd which cut off the ears of the
Ba'thi officials it got its hands on, several hundred doctors
protested at having to carry out the new punishments.(5)

Upon being threatened with having their own ears cut off, the doctors
called off their strike. Law number 117 was then promptly issued
clearly directed at the whole medical profession. It threatened
anyone who assisted in the cosmetic improvement of the appearance
of an officially disfigured bodily part with immediate amputation.
The law's wording ends with this strange acknowledgement of the
public outrage: "The effects" of the punishment of amputation of
the hand or ear and branding, "will be eliminated [by the state]
if those so punished go on to perform heroic and patriotic acts."(6)

If I have gone on for too long describing these grisly punishments,
it is in order to drive home the following point. The Gulf war,
the uprising against the regime, the savagery of its suppression,
and the continuation of a regime of sanctions for nearly four
years, and everything else that has happened since, represent the
crossing of a kind of Rubicon as far as the Ba'thist experience in
Iraq goes. I don't see any turning back. Things may get worse;
in fact they are more likely to get worse than they are to get
better. The one thing they won't do is go back to anything like
what they were before the Gulf war. To count in such an environment
on the regime's "good behavior" as The Economist put it, makes no
sense at all.

For the people of Iraq, the Gulf War has never ended. They desperately
want normality. For a report from inside Iraq, see "Voices from the
Iraqi Street":
http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837

I don't know what the answer is. If the US goes to war against Saddam,
there may be even more terrible effects in the rest of the region.
But I think it'll be pretty terrible for the people of Iraq if Saddam
Hussein is able to survive the current crisis and stay in power.

A realist would say that the primary concern of the United States
must be Saddam's nuclear weapons program, not the suffering of the
Iraqi people, and that if Saddam agrees to disarm, the US should
leave him there. The US can't solve all the problems of the world.
But that's a very hard thing to have to say.

One last description: see Annex One of the British dossier.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/hrdossier.pdf

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

mark richards

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 6:45:17 PM1/21/03
to
Hi Russil,

Russil Wvong wrote:
>[...]


> For the people in Iraq, that's not a very comforting distinction.

Yeah, I knew this sentence would come up again :) at first, i agree, but
there is the fact that saddam is not threatening the usa, but osama
does. Since bin-laden is a direct threat to the USA, the US-led war
against terror(osama) seems justified to me. But a war US/UK against
Saddam is way different, even if Bush&Co tried to construct the
AlQaida-Iraq connection. There is no direct threat to the US, and thus
the US have no right to take out the leader of an other country on their
own decision. That was what i wanted to say...

>
> I'm reluctant to support a war, because the risks are so great,
> but it's very difficult to read descriptions of what life is like
> in Iraq, and to not think that nobody should have to live like this.

There have been many such regimes in history and there still exist
regimes but nobody is even thinking about waging war against them. And
as I mentioned in my other post: If the Iraqi citizens really wanted to
change their fate, they would be able to. Even the cia made at least one
attempt to support the iraqi opposition in initiating a rise-up against
the regime. They failed because lack of support inside iraq.

> [...]


> If I have gone on for too long describing these grisly punishments,
> it is in order to drive home the following point. The Gulf war,
> the uprising against the regime, the savagery of its suppression,
> and the continuation of a regime of sanctions for nearly four
> years, and everything else that has happened since, represent the
> crossing of a kind of Rubicon as far as the Ba'thist experience in
> Iraq goes. I don't see any turning back. Things may get worse;
> in fact they are more likely to get worse than they are to get
> better. The one thing they won't do is go back to anything like
> what they were before the Gulf war. To count in such an environment
> on the regime's "good behavior" as The Economist put it, makes no
> sense at all.

Yeah, saddam is cruel, as many regimes(for example on the african
continent) are and even more have been cruel in the past... but in the
most of them the US had no interest at all.

>
> For the people of Iraq, the Gulf War has never ended. They desperately
> want normality. For a report from inside Iraq, see "Voices from the
> Iraqi Street":
> http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837
>
> I don't know what the answer is. If the US goes to war against Saddam,
> there may be even more terrible effects in the rest of the region.
> But I think it'll be pretty terrible for the people of Iraq if Saddam
> Hussein is able to survive the current crisis and stay in power.

What i think is that the International Community has enough reasons and
good methods to make living in iraq easier for the population and harder
for the governement to punish their own citizens.

- A strict regime of (smart) sanctions, which have to be enforced by
military so smuggeling of oil(to make money for the governement) is
stopped and to stop smuggeling of technology into the country for
development of wmd.

- Forcing the regime to allow the distribution of food and medical aid
to the iraqi people by ngo's

- destruction of saddams wmd(uncovered becaus US gave the evidence, and
supplied surveillence tech to the UN)

- forcing the regime to accept surveillence of double-use-technology

- enforcing applyication international human rights standards

Really I'm not overseeing the possible effects in the region, i don't
have enough knowledge about the real powers and their opinions in the
region. But certainly, an attack would worsen the situation in the
israeli-palestinian conflict. And regarding the terrorists and their
supporters in the region you don't need to be a genius to know that
islamist-terrorist will be a winner if iraq is attacked. Islamist
terrorists have won(at least in part) already, because of the huge US
military presence in the region. I don't think that Saddam surviving a
war would matter that much. I don't like the way the US-Governement is
acting, but im certain they would win a war if it starts. So if Saddam
would survive then either in US custody or in exile in a friendly country.

>
> A realist would say that the primary concern of the United States
> must be Saddam's nuclear weapons program, not the suffering of the
> Iraqi people, and that if Saddam agrees to disarm, the US should
> leave him there. The US can't solve all the problems of the world.
> But that's a very hard thing to have to say.

I as a realist would say that the nuclear program of saddam is not the
biggest problem. It's just made up the biggest threat cause all people
remember and fear the "duck-and-cover"-times of the cold war. Imho the
biological weapons are the biggest problem. Installations for developing
nuclear capabilities are hard to hide from inspections(because they are
big, and the development needs a lot of technology which can serve only
this evil purpose). Biological weapons installations require mostly
dual-use equipment and are much easier to hide cause they are much smaller.
I don't agree that they should just leave him there if he agrees to
disarm, because saddam deserves to be under constant control by the
international community, which has to be enforced by weapons if it is
needed.
But I totally agree with you: The USA don't have any right to do it on
their own.

>
> One last description: see Annex One of the British dossier.
> http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/hrdossier.pdf

As i already mentioned... many of the methods of torture described there
are known to be used by other countries in the region and elsewhere(for
example the african continent), too. and the us gives a shit about them.
btw: the common reply to this report from non us/uk governements was
that this report didn't mention any unknown facts at all. So this has
been public knowledge for years, and nobody cared about it. Even when
Gen. Schwartzkopf was half an hour away from Baghdad...

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

Bye Mark
Berlin, Germany

Russil Wvong

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 10:30:13 PM1/21/03
to
mark richards <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Russil Wvong wrote:
> > For the people in Iraq, that's not a very comforting distinction.
>
> Yeah, I knew this sentence would come up again :) at first, i agree, but
> there is the fact that saddam is not threatening the usa, but osama
> does.

Sure. I'm just saying that from the point of view of an ordinary Iraqi,
things look pretty different. I can see why Mohamad thinks Saddam should
be overthrown.

> Yeah, saddam is cruel, as many regimes(for example on the african
> continent) are and even more have been cruel in the past... but in the
> most of them the US had no interest at all.

I know. No country is going to go to send its soldiers to war for
purely humanitarian reasons; there's always going to be some interest
involved. If there's no good reason for them to be at war, when things
go bad they'll just retreat. (As in Somalia.)

> > A realist would say that the primary concern of the United States
> > must be Saddam's nuclear weapons program, not the suffering of the
> > Iraqi people, and that if Saddam agrees to disarm, the US should
> > leave him there. The US can't solve all the problems of the world.
> > But that's a very hard thing to have to say.
>
> I as a realist would say that the nuclear program of saddam is not the
> biggest problem. It's just made up the biggest threat cause all people
> remember and fear the "duck-and-cover"-times of the cold war. Imho the
> biological weapons are the biggest problem.

Biological weapons are certainly much easier to hide, but they're very
hard to control compared to nuclear weapons. (They're a "poor man's"
nuclear weapon.) I think nuclear weapons are still the biggest threat.

> What i think is that the International Community has enough reasons and
> good methods to make living in iraq easier for the population and harder
> for the governement to punish their own citizens.
>
> - A strict regime of (smart) sanctions, which have to be enforced by
> military so smuggeling of oil(to make money for the governement) is
> stopped and to stop smuggeling of technology into the country for
> development of wmd.
>
> - Forcing the regime to allow the distribution of food and medical aid
> to the iraqi people by ngo's
>
> - destruction of saddams wmd(uncovered becaus US gave the evidence, and
> supplied surveillence tech to the UN)
>
> - forcing the regime to accept surveillence of double-use-technology
>
> - enforcing applyication international human rights standards

I think those are all good ideas. And if the crisis is resolved without
Saddam Hussein being overthrown, I hope they happen.

Jeremy Olson

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 1:21:37 AM1/22/03
to

"mark richards" <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:prdj0b.dj2.ln@ofwiejwoeifj...

> Mohamad Ashood wrote:
> > Sadam is a murderer to his own people. He poisoned his own people. He
> > used chemical weapons to kill Kurds, a minority ethic group in
> > Northern Iraq. He killed his son-in-law despite of his daughter
> > insisted to save him.
>
> ack
> but using wmd again is not possible for him, this would trigger war
> against him ...it would convince everybody in the world that he must be
> taken out.
>
> > He is no different than Osama bin Laden.
>
> Saddam does these things in his own country,

Since when is Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel part of Iraq?

>Bin-Laden is threatening
> the whole western world.
> Saddam doesn't make religious wars...

So he support his "Palestinian Brothers" just for the hell of it?

>christs as much a target for him
> as muslims are(his son 4 example)... Bin-Laden a religious
> terrorist...he attacks everything which he thinks doesn't fit into his
> concept of islam.

Saddam and bin Laden have different reasons for their evil murderous
ways, but that doesn't change things much.

> > Yeah,
> > there are crazy people over the world blindly support his regime.
> > Remember that, this is dictatorship regime. That means there one man
> > rules, controls, and governs until he dies.
>
>
> If the people of iraq would rise up against his regime, they would
> succeed...

Already tried this, several times. Didn't work. Most defectors
say that the Iraqi people aren't strong enough.

>we proved this here in eastern germany, it is possible if
> just enough people are fed up with the governement. Here in eastern
> germany, we had the secret police(stasi)... they killed people the
> regime didn't like, they spied on them... stasi spies where all over the
> country...sometimes one family member spied on the other... rising up
> against the regime was still possible.

Uh, Iraq makes east Germany look like DisneyLand.

> > No freedom. Who dares to
> > speak against him will be tortured and killed.
>
> So US will go around the world an attack all countrys where there isn't
> as much freedom as the us thinks is appropriate?

Their are many more reasons than that, but this is a factor. Isn't
it the right thing to do to help people in need?

>Shouldn't the United
> Nations(of this world) decide what is appropriate,

The UN is a paper tiger.

>and not just the US
> on its own?

The US isn't going in on it's own.

>Just because US is big enough to enforce its decisions, > doesn't mean it
decisions are always good.

Just because the UN let's Iraq get away with everything, doesn's mean we
should.

>The US have no right to do
> this on its own.

We aren't going to.

> > A few days ago, a
> > group of women from US traveled to Iraq to protest the war. Of course
> > they were allowed. Why didn't they protest against this Iraqis
> > dictatorship government.
>
> They simply didn't travel there to protest against saddam.
> (remember GD's answer... not protesting against saddam doesn't mean they
> are pro-saddam)
>
> > Middle Easters are affraid of the war that
> > may destabilize the region. Well, the region has already been
> > unstabilized because of this guy. He supports terrorism by paying
> > millions to the suiside bombers that circulates violence in Middle
> > East.
>
> Oh come on... the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend game... who do
> you think saddam has his biological weapons from? >yes, the us.

Uh, and France, and Russia, and China. Guess who supplied him with
almost all the components for his nuclear weapons program? Germany.

>the us
> played the same game on several occasions in the past.
> btw: the ones responsible for the palestinian-israeli problem are the
> israelis and palestinians themselves. ruling israelis give a shit about
> un resolutions and signed contracts with the palestinians. and most of
> the palestinians simply support violence agains civilians... simply they
> are both responsible for the destabilization.

I completely agree.

>the palestinians seek
> their support on their side(in the region) and the israelis seek support
> from their friends(us)... and both get their support
>
> > Once, Iraq has all kind of weapons of mass destruction. US
> > will be unable to control this mad dog.
>
> US is not the world-police!

When the UN fails to act when it should, we basically have to be.

>US should not be able to control that mad
> dog on it's own.

Should we let the mad dog do what he wants, until he becomes
uncontrollable?

>It should support the un in controling him,

Only the UN doesn't Control him. The UN doesn't do anything to him.
The UN hasn't enforced a single resolution against Iraq since 1991.

>but us
> doesn't do that properly. US says it knows iraq has wmd... iraq allowed
> UN-Inspectors to come in an destroy them, but the us doesn't tell where
> the wmd are hidden.

Actually we have given them some information, and sources have said that
the recent raid on that scientists house was due to an intelligence tip.
That said, until the root of the problem (Saddam) nothing will change.

>So why destroying a whole country...

The whole country won't be destroyed, unless Saddam does it himself.

>killing many
> civilians(yes, that usually happens in wars)...

And no, their won't be nearly as many civilians killed as even in the
first Gulf War. Not to mention most of those civilians would support us.

>why that if there are
> people who can(are allowed by iraq) simply walk up to the wmd-site and
> destroy them?

And what about the other some-odd sites we don't know about?
Defectors have said that inspectors will never find Iraq's WMD. UNSCOM
was their for seven years and couldn't find everything.

> > If Iraq invades its neighbor
> > Kuwait again, don't ever think that US can kick this guy out easily
> > like the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
>
> before 1991 he wasn't under un-control,

He still isn't under UN control.

>and you where able to kick him
> out. in the last 13 years there where about 70 attacks on iraqi targets
> carried out by coalition planes inside the no-fly-zone. if us would just
> support the un-inspectors properly, he wouldn't be >able to develop wmd.

In desert fox things were discovered that inspectors hadn't even known
about. And that was after seven years of inspections.

> result: saddam could never again be as much a threat to it's neighbors
> as he was in 1991.
>
> > So, let's be smart and learn the
> > lesson in the past.
>
> ack:
> US starting wars on it's own doesn't really work out!
>
>
> > This mad dog Sadam and Kim Jong Il are evils who
> > starve their people while looking for building weapons of mass
> > destruction.
>
> ack, and the superpower which could really help the international
> community to handle/control them properly, could help enforce sanctions,
> just wants to go to war war war war war.... that can't be the proper
> solution.

In many cases, war can be the proper solution.

Jeremy Olson


Dallas Cowboy

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 11:00:01 AM1/22/03
to
If you think Bush or Americans want war, it is incorrect. Prior of
war in Afghanistan, Bush had many times called the Taliban to hand
over Osama bin Laden or lose its power. He wanted to end in peaceful
way but a hardline radical Taliban did not. The Taliban even
challenged the US to be like Vietnam and Samolia. Once US started
war, Afghans also stood up everywhere to support US and Northern
Alliance force to overthrow Taliban. Similarly to Iraq, Bush asked
Sadam regime to disarm their weapons of mass destruction rather to
face war. It seems they are playing the same cat and mouse game again
as they played in the past. Iraq keeps delaying time to divide among
UN Security Council members. Bush and Americans are sick and tired of
this game. Hey, US lost over 3000 lives in World Trade Center. Yes,
this time US does not want to lose 3,00,000,000 lives with wmd. If
Iraq claim that it does not have wmd, it lies. Al Quadas had received
training to use chemical weapons in Iraq prior US force in Afghanistan
war. Yes, US don't want Iraq to be like another North Korea. Now, US
even has a harder time to deal with North Korea who is using blackmail
for its developing nuclear weapons. Unlike Russians, Europeans, and
Americans people are well living and well educated to protect nuclear
weapons falling into a wrong guy. Iraq and North Korea are willing to
hand nuclear and wmd to bad guys.

M. Hamill

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 6:19:12 PM1/22/03
to
The question is which is worse: allowing Saddam to remain in power as the
brutal thug with a history of aggression, knowing he could one day acquire
nuclear weapons despite sanctions; or, whether a war to disarm Iraq and
overthrow him is a worse evil, with all the upheavel, suffering, death and
chaos that could result. The peoples of the Mideast are as nervous as a cat
on a hot tin roof about war in Iraq, and rightly so; they are more worried
about the latter than the former.

North Korea probably has nuclear weapons, or soon will, and could not be
disarmed without unleashing a war on the Korean peninsula.
----
"Mohamad Ashood" <moham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eab77b1.03012...@posting.google.com...
: Sadam is a murderer to his own people.


Russil Wvong

unread,
Jan 22, 2003, 11:39:55 PM1/22/03
to
"M. Hamill" wrote:
> The question is which is worse: allowing Saddam to remain in power as the
> brutal thug with a history of aggression, knowing he could one day acquire
> nuclear weapons despite sanctions; or, whether a war to disarm Iraq and
> overthrow him is a worse evil, with all the upheaval, suffering, death and
> chaos that could result.

Absolutely correct.

Russil

mark richards

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:58:14 AM1/23/03
to
Dallas Cowboy wrote:
> If you think Bush or Americans want war, it is incorrect. Prior of
> war in Afghanistan, Bush had many times called the Taliban to hand
> over Osama bin Laden or lose its power. He wanted to end in peaceful
> way but a hardline radical Taliban did not. The Taliban even
> challenged the US to be like Vietnam and Samolia. Once US started
> war, Afghans also stood up everywhere to support US and Northern
> Alliance force to overthrow Taliban.

Ack, this was ok, this was justified, no question about that.

> Similarly to Iraq, Bush asked
> Sadam regime to disarm their weapons of mass destruction rather to
> face war.

Bush has no right to threaten another country with war on its own, no
matter for what reason! This is the job of the international community.

> It seems they are playing the same cat and mouse game again
> as they played in the past. Iraq keeps delaying time to divide among
> UN Security Council members.

Maybe the UN Security Council Members have some problems declaring war
on a country based on nothing else than Bush's speeches. If he wants
war, he has to prove iraq has wmd AND is denying the international
community to destroy them once they are located. Iraqs lack of
cooperation is kind of justified, if you take into account that during
the past x months bush mangaged to talk himself into a position where
not starting the war would damage his image as president and the image
of the whole US governement seriously. Iraq knows war is coming no
matter if they cooperate or not. The only thing Iraq really does is
cooperate as long as this delays the coming war. If someone say's he's
going to kill you, would you hand over your weapons to him?

> Bush and Americans are sick and tired of
> this game. Hey, US lost over 3000 lives in World Trade Center. Yes,
> this time US does not want to lose 3,00,000,000 lives with wmd.

Oh come on, Iraq has nothing to do with the WTC desaster.
Iraq is not a direct threat to the US, nor is it a direct threat to
Israel regarding attacks with wmd. A direct attack against either Israel
or America with wmd would result in Iraq beeing nothing more than a red
glowing dot on the face of planet earth within hours... saddam is not
that dumb.

> If
> Iraq claim that it does not have wmd, it lies. Al Quadas had received
> training to use chemical weapons in Iraq prior US force in Afghanistan
> war.

This is not a proven fact! A fact is that al-qaeda have trained the use
of chemical weapons, but iraq is by far not the only country who has
this kind of knowledge. There is no evidence that iraq has al-quaeda
connections. Remember the sarin-attack on the tokyo subway? This kind of
knowledge is publicly available, to everybody in the world. Bush tried
but never managed to show up a proven iraq - alquaeda connection.
Why is iraq lying? Because bush said it? Iraq is not cooperating, but
thats way diffrent to lying. US says he has wmd, so US has to prove it.
It's that simple. And even if saddam is in the posession of wmd, the
question is why sending fighter planes to iraq, risking innocent lives,
when there are people on the ground who are allowed by the iraqi
governement to go anywhere, take or if needed destroy anything they want?

> Yes, US don't want Iraq to be like another North Korea. Now, US
> even has a harder time to deal with North Korea who is using blackmail
> for its developing nuclear weapons. Unlike Russians, Europeans, and
> Americans people are well living and well educated to protect nuclear
> weapons falling into a wrong guy. Iraq and North Korea are willing to
> hand nuclear and wmd to bad guys.

Again: this is not a proven fact... but i know.. bush said it so it must
be true...right?

mark richards

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 8:58:15 AM1/23/03
to
Jeremy Olson wrote:
>[...]

> Since when is Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel part of Iraq?

Well, why don't Iran and Saudi Arabia openly support the US campaign
against iraq? At least SA has often enough said that they feel a
destabilization of the whole region. I don't really know what the latest
decisions where... are American Bombers allowed to use Prince Sultan
Airbase for the coming Iraq Attack or not?
Kuwait is like a burned child, it fears fire, no matter how small it is.
The chances that Iraq tries again invading a foreign country are so
small, cause this would be the perfect justification for the United
Nations to stop the Iraqi regime once and for all. But still, Kuwaitis
are fearing these things happening again, which is perfectly understandable.

> [...]


> So he support his "Palestinian Brothers" just for the hell of it?

He supports his Palestinian Brothers because they have a common enemy...
you know, the same thing the us did in afghanistan(common enemy: the
russians) and in iraq(common enemy: iran, btw the cia sold weapons to
iran, too during this war)

your governement knows this game better than any other governement in
the world, so don't such these silly questions


> Saddam and bin Laden have different reasons for their evil murderous
> ways, but that doesn't change things much.

Wrong! It changes things very much, cause his intentions made of OBL a
direct threat to the western world, mainly america(as we saw on 9-11,
sadly)... so an attack by US agains the bases of al-qaeda and the
country who didn't handed over the terrorists was perfectly justified.

But saddams intentions don't make a direct threat out of him to the US
population, thus the US has NO RIGHT to decide on their own to take him out.
> [...]


>
> Already tried this, several times. Didn't work. Most defectors
> say that the Iraqi people aren't strong enough.

gee, why didn't it work? because there where many people in iraq which
still supported saddam.

>[...]

> Uh, Iraq makes east Germany look like DisneyLand.

you dumbass... you know nothing...

>[...]


> The UN is a paper tiger.

because they just don't want to kill innocent iraqi citizens?
Just because george sais "there has to be war"?
I agree, seeing george playing the war drums, it looks like he is going
to make real action in iraq... no matter if justified, no matter if
alone or with support of non us/uk countrys, no matter of evidence or no
evidence... just making war... yes dude...that's real action.

> The US isn't going in on it's own.

yeah, but it's not only about going alone or together with two or three
partners, it's about listening to all of those who are against it.

>
> Just because the UN let's Iraq get away with everything, doesn's mean we
> should.

US has the same rights to invade Iraq on its own as Touvalu, Burkina
Faso, Germany or Iceland has... none!

>
>
> We aren't going to.
>

Oh yes, the brits, israelis and kuwaitis support you... well, that still
aren't the united nations. There is an institution which is in charge of
such a decision, its called the UN Security Council. And george already
said that he is going to ignore the decision made there.(Invading Iraq
with or without a resolution means exactly giving a shit about the
security councils decisions)


> [...]

> Uh, and France, and Russia, and China. Guess who supplied him with
> almost all the components for his nuclear weapons program? Germany.

And who supplied the bacteria/viruses for biological warfare?... USA!

>
> When the UN fails to act when it should, we basically have to be.
>

Simply: NO! If there is anything UN didn't find yet, then it is because
one of it's members doesn't tell where the wmd are. This member of the
UN starts war on it's own, but gives a fuck about the fact that they
have obligations to share their knowledge with the un. Bush isn't
sending all this stuff down there for nothing... but why exactly he does
this, he wasn't able to prove... he's just talking, talking,
talking... but poved is nothing. If you want the police in your country
to arrest people who's noses they don't really like... good luck...
that's the kind of world police the US tries to be at the moment.

>[...]


>
> Should we let the mad dog do what he wants, until he becomes
> uncontrollable?

if a country is uncontrollable by another country... that's perfectly
ok. The UN should enforce and excercise control of
countrys/governements/regimes if needed(as it is needed in iraq right now)

>
> Only the UN doesn't Control him. The UN doesn't do anything to him.
> The UN hasn't enforced a single resolution against Iraq since 1991.

That's not right... they destroyed wmd, they inspected an put equipment
under surveillence... if there are still wmd, why doesn't george just
point his finger there and says: inspectors... go there, get it, destroy
it!?

>
> Actually we have given them some information, and sources have said that
> the recent raid on that scientists house was due to an intelligence tip.
> That said, until the root of the problem (Saddam) nothing will change.
>

Oh come on..the us governement even tried to hide the us-sponsored
surveillence flight-photos from the UN-Inspectors. They gave them Photos
of such a bad quality, no marks on them of the time and place when the
photos where taken... that's the support the us gives to UN with it's
high-tech. These little pieces of information US offers to the UN have
been outdate and much less of quality than they could have been. If
this one tip came from US-Sources... wow. The fact is still, if the un
finds something it can destroy it... i really hope there aren't six
carriers down their just on the basis of some papers and some empty
warheads.... there must be more the us knows, or if not... it has other
intentions down there.

>
>>So why destroying a whole country...
>
>
> The whole country won't be destroyed, unless Saddam does it himself.

yeah... except some missliles with a buggy guiding-system... or some
smart bombs going into bunkers full of civilians...and some accedent's
during close quaters combat in and around the big citys... imho all this
is avoidable collateral damage.

> [...]


> And no, their won't be nearly as many civilians killed as even in the
> first Gulf War. Not to mention most of those civilians would support us.
>

yeah, did you think about the close quaters combat situations in the big
cities... who do you think the quaters in close-quaters combat will
belong to? the citizens of iraq. what is now in planning is a totally
different story than in the last war.

> And what about the other some-odd sites we don't know about?
> Defectors have said that inspectors will never find Iraq's WMD. UNSCOM
> was their for seven years and couldn't find everything.
>

Hmm.. sometimes you don't find easter eggs because they are simply not
there... ever thought about this possibility?
And if they are there, the US must have knowledge at least of some of
them... but it doesn't tell the UN where they are.


> He still isn't under UN control.
>

No flight zones, 70 attacks daily in the no fly zones, inspectors which
are allowed to make inspections wherever they want... well this is all
just child play?

>
> In desert fox things were discovered that inspectors hadn't even known
> about. And that was after seven years of inspections.
>

look above... the us didn't fully support the inspections, of course if
you can't make use of most advanced US technology in inspections, you
won't have the same results as in intelligence operations and and
Operation like Desert-Fox where these advanced capabilities are in use.

>[...]

Bye Mark

mark richards

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 9:06:22 AM1/23/03
to
Russil Wvong wrote:
>
> Absolutely correct.

Not correct... the question is if one country has the right to make and
enforce the answer to this question on its own, or if this shouldn't be
a decision made and enforced by the UN security council.
The question is if one country is allowed to give a shit about the
security council's decisions.

Bye Mark
(Berlin, Germany)

Russil Wvong

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 2:00:20 PM1/23/03
to
mark richards <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Russil Wvong wrote:
> > "M. Hamill" wrote:
> > > The question is which is worse: allowing Saddam to remain in power
> > > as the brutal thug with a history of aggression, knowing he could
> > > one day acquire nuclear weapons despite sanctions; or, whether a
> > > war to disarm Iraq and overthrow him is a worse evil, with all the
> > > upheaval, suffering, death and chaos that could result.
> >
> > Absolutely correct.
>
> Not correct... the question is if one country has the right to make and
> enforce the answer to this question on its own, or if this shouldn't be
> a decision made and enforced by the UN security council.

That's an important question too. (And I would be much more supportive
of war if it was authorized by the UN Security Council.)

But I think Mark Hamill's question is the most critical one. In the
end, that's what each of the UN Security Council members will have
to decide. What's worse, leaving Saddam in power or going to war?

There's strong arguments either way, and it's quite possible that
leaving Saddam in power would be the lesser of two evils. But I
think that's the key question.

CMSQ...@webtv.net

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:06:05 AM1/24/03
to
"Shouldn't the United Nations(of this world) decide what is appropriate,
and not just the US on its own?"

Do you have no idea of current events? UN already been there/done that.
Violation upon violaton of UN resolutions. What more do you want? Jeez
maybe you should move off of planet fluffbunny to a reality based
planet.

Candy

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:45:51 AM1/24/03
to

"mark richards" <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:atoo0b.l71.ln@ofwiejwoeifj...

> Bush has no right to threaten another country with war on its own, no
> matter for what reason! This is the job of the international community.


The international community is toothless. Don't expect them to do a damned
thing except flap their lips.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com


Dallas Cowboy

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 11:12:40 AM1/24/03
to
O come on! Iraq is not direct threat to US but indirect by training Al
Qaeda on chemical weapons. The threat is even worse once Iraq has
nuclear weapons and hand them to wrong hands. I tell you that US
won't go war by itself or unilateral operation. Look at the history
since WWII until now. It always had supports from its allies. Will
France and German support? I hope they will change their minds. Many
other countries have already realized how serious threat under Sadam's
regime. They will support US. Of course, war would cost lives of
innocenses. But can you imagine more lives will be lost if Sadam
successfully acquire of wmd then hand them to wrong hands? Remember
that he already used chemical weapons that killed approximately 5000
Kurds including women and children. The purpose of No Fly Zone patrol
by British and US is not only to weaken Iraq air defense but intended
to help Kurds from Iraqis attack. Eventhough, intelligence supports
Iraq has wmd but that does not mean that US know exact locations to
point to UN inspectors. These chemical or wmd might have been moving
around before or after the UN inspector can catch. Did you see in
1990 when S. Africa voluntarily ban its nuclear weapons? S.A.
presented to UN all the history and info of how it came up and
developed nuclear weapons. After all, SA asked US to help destroying
its nuclear weapons. Contrary to the case of Iraq, Iraq have had
never truly cooperate with UN inspectors. You will wait and see.
Before US launching military attack, more evidence will come to light.
Then even more will come later.

mark richards

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 10:27:50 AM1/26/03
to
Dallas Cowboy wrote:
> O come on! Iraq is not direct threat to US but indirect by training Al
> Qaeda on chemical weapons.

There has been no proven connection between iraq and al qaeda! Bring it
up, then we'll talk again.

> The threat is even worse once Iraq has
> nuclear weapons and hand them to wrong hands. I tell you that US
> won't go war by itself or unilateral operation. Look at the history
> since WWII until now. It always had supports from its allies. Will
> France and German support? I hope they will change their minds.

In germany there it's the population who is oppose to us war plans. so
if schroeder is goin to change his opinion, he has to do it against the
will of his own people. if he does that, he will never win elections
again.. and he knows that fact very well.

> Many
> other countries have already realized how serious threat under Sadam's
> regime. They will support US. Of course, war would cost lives of
> innocenses. But can you imagine more lives will be lost if Sadam
> successfully acquire of wmd then hand them to wrong hands? Remember
> that he already used chemical weapons that killed approximately 5000
> Kurds including women and children.

I can only repeat myself: This is not going to happen again, cause it
would lead to immediate action agains iraq with full support of the UN.
Saddam knows this very well.

> The purpose of No Fly Zone patrol
> by British and US is not only to weaken Iraq air defense but intended
> to help Kurds from Iraqis attack.

Of course it's the firbre-optic communication lines(important part of
saddams air defense systems) which are the biggest threat to the
kurds...right? (look at the flyers the us dropped in the no-fly-zones at
globalsecurty.org)...

> Eventhough, intelligence supports
> Iraq has wmd but that does not mean that US know exact locations to
> point to UN inspectors.

So where are your tomahawks pointed at? So you say "first we'll take
over, then we'll see if he got as much wmd as we were pretending he had"?

> These chemical or wmd might have been moving
> around before or after the UN inspector can catch.

Well, if the UN would have been able to take advantage of US technology
(drones, satelites, surveillence-tech) maybe they would have had better
chances to find and destroy the wmd?

> Did you see in
> 1990 when S. Africa voluntarily ban its nuclear weapons? S.A.
> presented to UN all the history and info of how it came up and
> developed nuclear weapons. After all, SA asked US to help destroying
> its nuclear weapons.

Well, that's a different thing. Maybe they wouldn't have wanted to
destroy them if the us came along telling that they will invade S.A.
sooner or later.

> Contrary to the case of Iraq, Iraq have had
> never truly cooperate with UN inspectors. You will wait and see.
> Before US launching military attack, more evidence will come to light.
> Then even more will come later.

He has no reason to cooperate fully. Bush isn't saying "Saddam, you have
a chance if you comply"... Bush says "You can do what you want, we're
after you, Saddam in person. As long as he's there we'll invade". That's
the Bush policy, and thus Saddam has no reason to cooperate. He
cooperates as long as this cooperation can delay the beginning of war,
that's what's happening these days.
Yes saddam isn't a nice guy, yes he has to be forced to comply with the
un resolutions, but what bush does is not putting pressure to comply on
him. It's telling saddam that if he complies or not doesn't matter,
attack will come sooner or later.

bye mark
(berlin, germany)

mark richards

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 10:41:57 AM1/26/03
to
CMSQ...@webtv.net wrote:
> Do you have no idea of current events? UN already been there/done that.
> Violation upon violaton of UN resolutions. What more do you want? Jeez
> maybe you should move off of planet fluffbunny to a reality based
> planet.

Well, there are many people out there who are sharing my opinion. That
tells me that my point of view can't be that far out of space as you
seem to think.

What i want is, that in the future the only institution who is able to
declare war for reasons of humanity or for the sake of the whole world
will be the United Nations.
Bush saying "We'd like to do it with you, but if you don't want we'll do
it on our own" is undermining the authority of the United Nations that
much, that it's going to be a whole new world order after this has
become reality.
In fact it's going back to the cold-war times where the only thing that
counts on this planet is having the most deadly weapons and the most
capable military. And this is exactly the way saddam himself looks at
this world. And actually... Bush is proving Saddams point of view to be
right.

US is big, US is capable, US's opinion is the only one that counts, US
will invade (Iraq) if Bush thinks it's needed.

Iraq is big, Iraq is capable, Iraqs opinion is the only one that counts,
Iraq will invade (Kuwait) if Saddam thinks it's needed.

do you see the similarities in the points of view i'm talking about?

>
> Candy
>

bye mark
(Berlin, Germany)

mark richards

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 11:12:18 AM1/26/03
to
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> The international community is toothless. Don't expect them to do a damned
> thing except flap their lips.

The international community is daclaring war the absolute last resort,
which is nothing less than responsible behavior.
The international community is making the decision to wage war on a
sovereign country not an easy one, which is nothing less than
responsible behavior.

Yes, the international community is toothless but only if the most
powerful member of it is undermining it's authority.

> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
> msch...@carolina.rr.com.BARF
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>

bye mark
(berlin, germany)

badanov

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 4:47:32 PM1/26/03
to
mark richards wrote:
> CMSQ...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> Do you have no idea of current events? UN already been there/done that.
>> Violation upon violaton of UN resolutions. What more do you want? Jeez
>> maybe you should move off of planet fluffbunny to a reality based
>> planet.
>
>
> Well, there are many people out there who are sharing my opinion. That
> tells me that my point of view can't be that far out of space as you
> seem to think.
>
> What i want is, that in the future the only institution who is able to
> declare war for reasons of humanity or for the sake of the whole world
> will be the United Nations.

The United Nations that runs 'Palestinian' refugee camps that have bomb
and weapons shops? THAT UN?


> Bush saying "We'd like to do it with you, but if you don't want we'll do
> it on our own" is undermining the authority of the United Nations that
> much, that it's going to be a whole new world order after this has
> become reality.

The UN has no moral authority whatsoever.

> In fact it's going back to the cold-war times where the only thing that
> counts on this planet is having the most deadly weapons and the most
> capable military. And this is exactly the way saddam himself looks at
> this world. And actually... Bush is proving Saddams point of view to be
> right.
>
> US is big, US is capable, US's opinion is the only one that counts, US
> will invade (Iraq) if Bush thinks it's needed.
>
> Iraq is big, Iraq is capable, Iraqs opinion is the only one that counts,
> Iraq will invade (Kuwait) if Saddam thinks it's needed.
>
> do you see the similarities in the points of view i'm talking about?
>
>>
>> Candy
>>
>
> bye mark
> (Berlin, Germany)
>

--
Peace through Superior Firepower

wiesio_republikanin

unread,
Jan 26, 2003, 5:11:56 PM1/26/03
to
so we should listen to a bunch of socialists with their own agenda

so the next time something is about to happen the president needs to go to
the UN
to ask for permission to deffend US citizens

stupidy never stops
get all socialists out of the Educational sysytem
cause the will help destroy the US

"mark richards" <dagget...@gmx.net> wrote in message

news:qpu01b.r02.ln@ofwiejwoeifj...

Dallas Cowboy

unread,
Jan 27, 2003, 12:53:17 PM1/27/03
to
>
> In germany there it's the population who is oppose to us war plans. so
> if schroeder is goin to change his opinion, he has to do it against the
> will of his own people. if he does that, he will never win elections
> again.. and he knows that fact very well.

Does it mean Schroeder ever loved his chancellor seat than the
reality of threat?

>
> I can only repeat myself: This is not going to happen again, cause it
> would lead to immediate action agains iraq with full support of the UN.
> Saddam knows this very well.

Oh yeah, should we wait til he has nuclear? No one dare to touch
Sadam if he is a threat of his neighbor countries. UN has not done
anything effectively to force Iraq on compliance until Bush has to
build this case then spoke in front of UN members prior the UN 1441
resolution was born.


> Yes saddam isn't a nice guy, yes he has to be forced to comply with the
> un resolutions, but what bush does is not putting pressure to comply on
> him. It's telling saddam that if he complies or not doesn't matter,
> attack will come sooner or later.
>

Well, US will not attack without reason. We have built the case to
UN. Yet, new 1441 has been born. Inspectors started inspect Iraq
with this new resolution. Here is quote pulled out from the full the
1441 version:

"...False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by
Iraq... and failure to comply with and co-operate fully in the
implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material
breach of Iraq's obligations..."

By now, you might already know the detail of the report from UN
Inspector after two months of inspection. Has Iraq fully co-operate
of this new resolution? Yer or No.

mark richards

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 6:23:29 AM1/30/03
to
badanov wrote:

> The United Nations that runs 'Palestinian' refugee camps that have bomb
> and weapons shops? THAT UN?

So you wanna bring up the isreal-palestine conflict again?
I'm not willing to start a discussion about this at the moment, so i'm
gonna make my argumentation short:
The weapons aren't the real problem, the problem is the people who feel
the need to use them.
My opinion to the Isreal-Palestine-Conflict in general: The words "cycle
of violence" describe perfectly the situation down there. Two societies
where dumb extremists or hurt souls are in the position to decide the
fate of their people/country...that just leads to more and more violence.

>
> The UN has no moral authority whatsoever.

it has, but if you don't accept that peace is better than war, that
violence is not good, that everybody should be able to live in peace,
that everybody should have enough to eat, that (no matter of all racial,
political,whatever differences) every human life should be treated with
respect, that human life in genereal needs to be protected....if you
don't accept these as the values which are most important...then you've
got a problem, cause you will raise your kids in a world full of
starving, inhumanity and violence. These are the values most important
to me, so i am accepting the idea of the UN as the world-authority which
represents these values. i really like that idea, and i think it would
be better for all of us and for the future of our children to support
the UN and the values it represents.

mark richards

unread,
Jan 30, 2003, 5:54:27 AM1/30/03
to
Dallas Cowboy wrote:

> Does it mean Schroeder ever loved his chancellor seat than the
> reality of threat?

No, it means that Schroeder has an understandig of what a leader of a
country is supposed to do. He is in his seat to represent the opinions
of his people, not his own. If you think your george is smarter than
anybody else in the us and therefore you all must share his opinion...
you've got a problem over there. I think it is just normal that a leader
has to value the opinions and position of the people in his country.


> Oh yeah, should we wait til he has nuclear? No one dare to touch
> Sadam if he is a threat of his neighbor countries. UN has not done
> anything effectively to force Iraq on compliance until Bush has to
> build this case then spoke in front of UN members prior the UN 1441
> resolution was born.

What's the matter if he's going nuclear? Look at the india-pakistan
problem: we were on the edge of a real nuclear war, but nobody even
thought about disarming one of these two. North korea has nuclear
weapons and is in need to sell weapons because they really need the
money, but nobody thinks about disarming it by force.
UN Resolution 1441 is based on a us initiative which was put up to
prepare for war. that's it. There would have been other -more peaceful-
ways, but bush didn't work to reach a peaceful solution. from the
beginning of this whole thing till now his only goal was to get
everything ready to attack iraq.

> Well, US will not attack without reason. We have built the case to
> UN. Yet, new 1441 has been born. Inspectors started inspect Iraq
> with this new resolution. Here is quote pulled out from the full the
> 1441 version:
>
> "...False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by
> Iraq... and failure to comply with and co-operate fully in the
> implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material
> breach of Iraq's obligations..."

Well, the un didn't do what bush wanted when it decided on the exact
words of 1441. the result is the actual "material breach"-discussion.
This sucks, cause nobody could expect real cooperation from saddam in
this situation. Cooperation was and is worth nothing for him. He knew
all the way he is going to be attacked, cooperation or not. He knew he
won't stay in power, cooperation or not. He knew, the sanctions won't be
lifted or changed to "smart sanctions", until he has been attacked. So
what the hell should force him to hand over his weapons?

>
> By now, you might already know the detail of the report from UN
> Inspector after two months of inspection. Has Iraq fully co-operate
> of this new resolution? Yer or No.

Depends on how you define "cooperation"... pro-active cooperation: no,
cooperation in general: yes. unmovic and iaea were able to go where they
wanted, to talk to whoever they wanted to talk to, they where allowed to
take what they wanted to take... yes he did what UN wanted, but not more.

bye mark
(berlin, germany)

Dallas Cowboy

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 11:07:24 AM1/31/03
to
> anybody else in the us and therefore you all must share his opinion...
> you've got a problem over there. I think it is just normal that a leader
> has to value the opinions and position of the people in his country.
>
Ok, Schroeder folllows his people opinion. George follows his people
too.

>
> What's the matter if he's going nuclear? Look at the india-pakistan
> problem: we were on the edge of a real nuclear war, but nobody even
> thought about disarming one of these two. North korea has nuclear
> weapons and is in need to sell weapons because they really need the
> money, but nobody thinks about disarming it by force.
> UN Resolution 1441 is based on a us initiative which was put up to
> prepare for war. that's it. There would have been other -more peaceful-
> ways, but bush didn't work to reach a peaceful solution. from the
> beginning of this whole thing till now his only goal was to get
> everything ready to attack iraq.

It is a big matter. That is why we and most European nations
except France and Germany have realized it. Don't compare Pakistan
vs. India, just as you compare US vs. Russia. Since our discussion,
you always accuse that Bush wants war. If he really does, he probably
bomb Iraq already w/o wasting UN time. Attack or not attack, depend
on Iraq.

> Well, the un didn't do what bush wanted when it decided on the exact
> words of 1441. the result is the actual "material breach"-discussion.
> This sucks, cause nobody could expect real cooperation from saddam in
> this situation. Cooperation was and is worth nothing for him. He knew
> all the way he is going to be attacked, cooperation or not. He knew he
> won't stay in power, cooperation or not. He knew, the sanctions won't be
> lifted or changed to "smart sanctions", until he has been attacked. So
> what the hell should force him to hand over his weapons?
>

The language in Resolution 1441 has been carefully reviewed and
approved by each and every UN Security Council member. So, if you
undermine it, it means you undermine all foreign ministers who
represent UN and their countries. Do you think you have better
English skill than them? Hey, if Iraq fully complies based on 1441 UN
resolution, how dare US attack? UN members will not sit there and
watch US. Remember that Iraq did not comply in previous UN resolution.
And the UN has CONCLUDED that Iraq has capability of developing wmd
after 1991. The sadness was that no one in UN even UN Security
Council did not do anything until the US has to jump in and build the
case.

> Depends on how you define "cooperation"... pro-active cooperation: no,
> cooperation in general: yes. unmovic and iaea were able to go where they
> wanted, to talk to whoever they wanted to talk to, they where allowed to
> take what they wanted to take... yes he did what UN wanted, but not more.
>

I don't have to define it. The UN inspector chiefs will define it.
In fact, they already define how Iraq compliance in the recent report.

Hung

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 12:02:46 PM1/31/03
to
> do you see the similarities in the points of view i'm talking about?

No, I don't. Iraq was has been a threat to its neighbors. You can
ask every Middle East country if they are confidence about their
Muslim brother to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the US is looking
for protection of its citizens. Not a threat.

It seems that now France & Germany who do not like US at all on any
case. Unless US should lose more lives by terrorists to earn their
sympathy. I feel sorry for France. It is losing all power since WW
II. Recently, it seems to lose Ivory Coast soon. The problem of
France colonism rule was they took the rich and left the poverty to
the people. Look at what happened in Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia, and most
North African nations. These countries were poorest countries under
France's colonism rule. Uncomparable to Hong Kong, Singapore,
Australia, .... are rich. No question for Germany. These used-to-be
two superpowers might jeolous at US. Yet, they affraid of US world
dominance. But it is contrary to the case of against Iraq here. If
US want to dominate the world, it won't let China became a member of
the World Trade Organization. It seems that China is on the ladder to
dominate the world economy soon.

popi

unread,
Jan 31, 2003, 3:07:30 PM1/31/03
to
hung...@yahoo.com (Hung) wrote in
news:8e2dd4b7.03013...@posting.google.com:

loose ivory coast ? I didn't know that ivory coast was not an independant
country.It seems that french troops did save us citizens in this part of
the world.Is saoudi arabia an us colony because there are us troops in it's
soil.I don't think bush want to dominate the world , he just want dad
factory to sell weapons to the us army.
popi

domi

unread,
Feb 1, 2003, 5:35:25 AM2/1/03
to
popi <yo...@aol.com> wrote in news:b1el22$18$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr:

> hung...@yahoo.com (Hung) wrote in
> news:8e2dd4b7.03013...@posting.google.com:
>
>>> do you see the similarities in the points of view i'm talking about?
>>
>> No, I don't. Iraq was has been a threat to its neighbors. You can
>> ask every Middle East country if they are confidence about their
>> Muslim brother to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the US is looking
>> for protection of its citizens. Not a threat.
>>
>> It seems that now France & Germany who do not like US at all on any
>> case. Unless US should lose more lives by terrorists to earn their
>> sympathy. I feel sorry for France. It is losing all power since WW
>> II. Recently, it seems to lose Ivory Coast soon. The problem of
>> France colonism rule was they took the rich and left the poverty to
>> the people. Look at what happened in Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia, and
>> most North African nations. These countries were poorest countries
>> under France's colonism rule. Uncomparable to Hong Kong, Singapore,
>> Australia, .... are rich. No question for Germany. These
>> used-to-be two superpowers might jeolous at US. Yet, they affraid of
>> US world dominance. But it is contrary to the case of against Iraq
>> here. If US want to dominate the world, it won't let China became a
>> member of the World Trade Organization. It seems that China is on
>> the ladder to dominate the world economy soon.
>>
>

hello
how about india , pakistan , palestine ? how rich are these people ?
how about the western us territories in the 19 th century ?yes indian are
not poor now , they are nearly exterminated !
domi

Hung

unread,
Feb 4, 2003, 6:00:56 PM2/4/03
to
> >
> hello
> how about india , pakistan , palestine ? how rich are these people ?
> how about the western us territories in the 19 th century ?yes indian are
> not poor now , they are nearly exterminated !
> domi

It seems you need to read the history of India, Pakistan, and
Palestine? India and Pakinstan want to be independent. That was why
British left to respect their people. British and US did not play a
major role on India. Even staying as neutral, India military
equipments have been purchased from Soviet Union as now Russia.
Pakistan has never been a colony of anyone since its separation from
India to be indepent. About Palestine, I have no idea how did you
bring this guy. Again, read more history before any further
discussion in here.

Hung

unread,
Feb 4, 2003, 6:08:27 PM2/4/03
to
>
> loose ivory coast ? I didn't know that ivory coast was not an independant
> country.It seems that french troops did save us citizens in this part of
> the world.Is saoudi arabia an us colony because there are us troops in it's
> soil.I don't think bush want to dominate the world , he just want dad
> factory to sell weapons to the us army.
> popi

I did not mention about Ivory Coast considered as French Colony but it
seems France wants to get influence on this tiny land. As for me,
influence or not influence. People and Democracy are highest priority
to build the trust. That was what British and US have done. If they
don't like you, stay away as US did in Vietnam. If China wants its
island back to its motherland, fine as Britain did in Hongkong.
Eventhough, Hongkong and Vietnam were given back. Hongkong and
Vietnamese people still love to do business with British and US.

mark richards

unread,
Feb 5, 2003, 7:21:45 PM2/5/03
to
Dallas Cowboy wrote:
>>anybody else in the us and therefore you all must share his opinion...
>>you've got a problem over there. I think it is just normal that a leader
>>has to value the opinions and position of the people in his country.
>>
>
> Ok, Schroeder folllows his people opinion. George follows his people
> too.

well... depending on the time the poll is done... i heard of polls where
more than 50% of the questioned americans where against war on iraq. so
sometimes george follows his people...other times he gives a shit about
them... depends on who does the poll and how good bush's
propaganda-machine is workin at that time.

>
>
>>What's the matter if he's going nuclear? Look at the india-pakistan
>>problem: we were on the edge of a real nuclear war, but nobody even
>>thought about disarming one of these two. North korea has nuclear
>>weapons and is in need to sell weapons because they really need the
>>money, but nobody thinks about disarming it by force.
>>UN Resolution 1441 is based on a us initiative which was put up to
>>prepare for war. that's it. There would have been other -more peaceful-
>>ways, but bush didn't work to reach a peaceful solution. from the
>>beginning of this whole thing till now his only goal was to get
>>everything ready to attack iraq.
>
>
> It is a big matter. That is why we and most European nations
> except France and Germany have realized it. Don't compare Pakistan
> vs. India, just as you compare US vs. Russia. Since our discussion,
> you always accuse that Bush wants war. If he really does, he probably
> bomb Iraq already w/o wasting UN time. Attack or not attack, depend
> on Iraq.

well 8 out of 25 european nations... that's really "most of them" ;-)
why not saying that india and pakistan brought the world to the edge of
a nuclear war last year? saddam didn't do anything like that lately, but
is much more of a threat...why?

Hey.. george w. tries to do it with the un, cause he want's to stay
president of the us. if he does it without international support, he
would be in real trouble. most of his own people would start thinking if
this was right... maybe he wouldn't get reelected as president. last but
not least... us would lose many friends in the international community
if it starts the takeover of a sovereign country on it's own.

>
>>Well, the un didn't do what bush wanted when it decided on the exact
>>words of 1441. the result is the actual "material breach"-discussion.
>>This sucks, cause nobody could expect real cooperation from saddam in
>>this situation. Cooperation was and is worth nothing for him. He knew
>>all the way he is going to be attacked, cooperation or not. He knew he
>>won't stay in power, cooperation or not. He knew, the sanctions won't be
>>lifted or changed to "smart sanctions", until he has been attacked. So
>>what the hell should force him to hand over his weapons?
>>
>
> The language in Resolution 1441 has been carefully reviewed and
> approved by each and every UN Security Council member. So, if you
> undermine it, it means you undermine all foreign ministers who
> represent UN and their countries. Do you think you have better
> English skill than them? Hey, if Iraq fully complies based on 1441 UN
> resolution, how dare US attack? UN members will not sit there and
> watch US. Remember that Iraq did not comply in previous UN resolution.
> And the UN has CONCLUDED that Iraq has capability of developing wmd
> after 1991. The sadness was that no one in UN even UN Security
> Council did not do anything until the US has to jump in and build the
> case.

oh come on... first bush wanted to start war without resolution... the
world said no... then he wanted a resolution which legitimates war
without a second resolution... the world said no... then he finally
convinced/blackmailed/bought enough of the international community to
accept 1441 and the condition that a second resolution is needed to go
to war... and now? he(and blair) are talking about that there would be
no second resolution needed, cause non compliance with 1441 would be
enought to legitimate war.... and anywhays... bush sais he is going to
war with or without the un (but he liked to do it with un support). so
he gives a shit about the un if he can't get it to do what he wants them
to do.... and yes... bush wants war. war is simply not needed to resolve
the iraq problem. spending enough resources and giving enough time it
would be possible to find and destroy anything that makes saddam a
threat to the free world. but the us doesn't want to disarm him, they
want control over iraq and they want to get saddam as a
person(especially george w. wants saddam dead cause saddam tried to kill
his daddy).... there are other reasons to take over iraq... the threat
it poses to israel with(not the threat of direct attacks, but the
financing of palestinian terror/resistance, imho one of the main
reasons), a war would strengthen the us's power in the region, and maybe
because of oil...for sure therer are some other reasons, i don't know
about. yes, bush wants war...for sure.

>
>>Depends on how you define "cooperation"... pro-active cooperation: no,
>>cooperation in general: yes. unmovic and iaea were able to go where they
>>wanted, to talk to whoever they wanted to talk to, they where allowed to
>>take what they wanted to take... yes he did what UN wanted, but not more.
>>
>
> I don't have to define it. The UN inspector chiefs will define it.
> In fact, they already define how Iraq compliance in the recent report.

yeah, they say iraq is cooperating, but not "pro-active"... so it
depends on definition of "cooperation"... if cooperation means letting
unmovic and iaea do what they wanna do... saddam is cooperating. but you
are right, you don't have to define it... george, condy and powell are
going to do it for you. for them only "pro-active cooperation" means
"cooperation".

rented dentures

unread,
Feb 6, 2003, 12:01:04 AM2/6/03
to
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:11:56 GMT, "wiesio_republikanin"
<adwe...@core.com> wrote:

>so we should listen to a bunch of socialists with their own agenda
>
>so the next time something is about to happen the president needs to go to
>the UN
>to ask for permission to deffend US citizens
>
>stupidy never stops
>get all socialists out of the Educational sysytem
>cause the will help destroy the US

looks like they got everybody that could outsmart an Afghan hound out
of yours.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages