Re: 867 lives thrown away for Bush's lie
thick
> http://www.bartcop.com/
>
> Bush's American soldier body count in Iraq
>
> 855, 858, 863, 867 dead American soldiers.
>
> Drip, drip, drip - young lives go down the drain for Bush's illegal war.
>
> Soon it will be 900,
> and sometime before the election, it will be 1000.
>
> Bush can depend on the American whore media
> to spin this into a "this isn't so bad" handjob.
>
>
>
>
> 867 lives thrown away for Bush's lie
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
>
Multiply the numbers with 100 or more is the numbers of the so called
Enemy. On 2nd thought, who give a shit who is not Americans? To many
Americans, live of others are pigs, donkeys, chicken and ducks of all form.
Sparky the Wonderdog
> >
> Multiply the numbers with 100 or more is the numbers of the so called
> Enemy. On 2nd thought, who give a shit who is not Americans? To many
> Americans, live of others are pigs, donkeys, chicken and ducks of all
form.
Some names are so apt aren't they.
dai...@hawaii.rr.com
<cG9wdXA=.d20faf123618eeca...@1089152429.nulluser.com>,
"Oklahoma Joe" <ok-no...@okie.net> wrote:
> 867 lives thrown away for Bush's lie
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
What lie are you referring to? The one about Iraq possesing
weapons of mass destruction and being a threat? Or, the one about
Viet Nam not practicing genocide against its ethnic minorities?
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end
of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he
has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4
years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the
interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and
the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his
offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating
Americašs response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the
United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding
that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is
not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
-- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September
27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted
Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe
Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John
Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter
signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among
others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement
between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by
failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and
refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive
progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a
joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July
18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again,
as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy
Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle
all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not
lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert
Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But
the United States right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far
as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't
have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I
think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as
would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq
represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may
lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we
fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no
evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well
affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence
back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up
and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense
William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used
them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and
our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two
decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction
through every available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors
and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is
doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that
each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct
10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its
weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian
Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate
his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
-- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept
19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger
for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical
weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological
weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used
chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the
past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can
be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining
weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged
in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is
a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to
continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains
several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve
gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs,
and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use
industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute
large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector
Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he
can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John
Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddamšs existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose
a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraqšs enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces
and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10,
2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrationšs policy
towards Iraq, I donšt think there can be any question about Saddamšs
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he
snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors;
and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of
the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security
Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
"If we want to promote human rights and political change in Vietnam,
we need to expand our contacts, not contract them through all the
tools at our disposal-- trade, aid, exchange programs, participation
in ASEAN and other regional and international institutions." -- John
F. Kerry, Jul 7, 1998
Jared
<dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dai-uy-E3D247....@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
Now we see the resluglicans getting desparate. Posting alleged "quotes"
from Democrats portraying them as believing the WMD lie. Like we are
supposed to believe some text in a newsgroup with a prominent Democrat name
after it. Get real. This is W's war based on W's lie.
Chas Hurst
> <cG9wdXA=.d20faf123618eeca...@1089152429.nulluser.com>,
> "Oklahoma Joe" <ok-no...@okie.net> wrote:
>
> > 867 lives thrown away for Bush's lie
> >
> > http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
> What lie are you referring to? The one about Iraq possesing
> weapons of mass destruction and being a threat? Or, the one about
> Viet Nam not practicing genocide against its ethnic minorities?
>
on your own about the Viet Nam question.
www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
Bush, and no one else, sent our troops into Iraq.
dai...@hawaii.rr.com
"Jared" <1...@dalsj.net> wrote:
> <dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:dai-uy-E3D247....@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > "If we want to promote human rights and political change in Vietnam,
> > we need to expand our contacts, not contract them through all the
> > tools at our disposal-- trade, aid, exchange programs, participation
> > in ASEAN and other regional and international institutions." -- John
> > F. Kerry, Jul 7, 1998
>
>
>
> Now we see the resluglicans getting desparate. Posting alleged "quotes"
> from Democrats portraying them as believing the WMD lie. Like we are
> supposed to believe some text in a newsgroup with a prominent Democrat name
> after it. Get real. This is W's war based on W's lie.
Jared,
Resluglicans? Republicans, I get it. Wow, are you ever witty!
Had you asked I would have told you that I'm a dedicated
hard-core independent. Each and every one of the "alleged" quotes
are accurate. If you're concerned, you could easily verify them
using Google. Two or three previous administrations as well as
prominent politicians of both parties have repeatedly stated that
Iraq posed a serious threat to our security, and that Saddam
possessed weapons of mass destruction. These views were shared by
nearly every member of the United Nations -- which implemented
numerous sanctions.
In fairness, there was every reason to believe that the analysis
was correct when Clinton, Kennedy, and Kerry said it was. I don't
think they were lying. Bush acted upon their urging. Now, you blame
him. Judging from their public statements, there is every reason to
believe that a President Clinton, Kennedy, or Kerry would also have
invaded Iraq.
Which is to say, that they are just as stupid as Bush. The
sanctions had Saddam corked in a bottle. He was not a threat. We
already had a war in Afghanistan. Our military had been cut to the
bone by two previous administrations.
Let's consider John F Kerry's lies...
867 fine young men have died in an effort to establish a measure
of freedom and democracy in Iraq -- a war for which John F. Kerry
voted and endorsed -- but compare that relatively small number to the
tens of thousands of deaths that have resulted from Hanoi's human
rights abuses against their citizens in Viet Nam and genocidal
policies against the ethnic minorities. Since their so-called
"liberation," the population of the Montagnards has been cut in half
by execution, starvation, illness, and forced sterilization -- while
that of the ethnic Kinh has doubled. The casualties of both the
Iraqi and coalition forces do not equal the number who have died in
"liberated" Viet Nam. Largely as a result of Senator John F. Kerry's
false statements concerning the Viet Nam Human Rights Act and the
renewal of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik amendment, the US has not
implemented any sort of sanction. Neither the sanctions recommended
by either the Viet Nam Human Rights Act or by the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment require Hanoi to do anything not already guaranteed by the
SRV Constitution. Why do you suppose Kerry opposes them? I have
asked him. He won't say.
The European Union and Japan have both begun similar sanctions
-- without asking John F. Kerry -- linking future aid to improvement
in Viet Nam's human rights.
Did I exceed your attention span again?
Sorry.
--
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
>>>"If we want to promote human rights and political change in Vietnam,
>>>we need to expand our contacts, not contract them through all the
>>>tools at our disposal-- trade, aid, exchange programs, participation
>>>in ASEAN and other regional and international institutions." -- John
>>>F. Kerry, Jul 7, 1998
>>
>>Now we see the resluglicans getting desparate. Posting alleged "quotes"
>>from Democrats portraying them as believing the WMD lie. Like we are
>>supposed to believe some text in a newsgroup with a prominent Democrat name
>>after it. Get real. This is W's war based on W's lie.
>
> hard-core independent. Each and every one of the "alleged" quotes
> are accurate. If you're concerned, you could easily verify them
> using Google. Two or three previous administrations as well as
> prominent politicians of both parties have repeatedly stated that
> Iraq posed a serious threat to our security, and that Saddam
> possessed weapons of mass destruction. These views were shared by
> nearly every member of the United Nations -- which implemented
> numerous sanctions.
And which instituted inspections to verify the unsubstantiated charges
when Bush invaded. If you're going to kill thousands of people and
disable tens of thousands more you should have proof, not just the
ramblings of Chalabis exiles.
> In fairness, there was every reason to believe that the analysis
> was correct when Clinton, Kennedy, and Kerry said it was. I don't
> think they were lying. Bush acted upon their urging. Now, you blame
> him. Judging from their public statements, there is every reason to
> believe that a President Clinton, Kennedy, or Kerry would also have
> invaded Iraq.
Clinton didn't. The CIA had testimony from Saddam's son-in-law that
he had ordered the destruction of the weapons at around the time of
the first war. So it was known that there weren't any WMD.
Besides, the older quotes don't claim that Iraq had WMD, just
"programs."
> "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
> retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
> We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
> Albright, 1998
> "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again,
^^^^^^^^
> as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy
> Berger, Feb 18, 1998
> Which is to say, that they are just as stupid as Bush. The
> sanctions had Saddam corked in a bottle. He was not a threat. We
> already had a war in Afghanistan. Our military had been cut to the
> bone by two previous administrations.
Just as stupid as Bush? That's kind of hard to believe. The
sanctions prevented Iraq from political liberalization along the lines
that were occurring in Iran. Of course Saddam was not a threat to the
US, but the sanctions helped maintain him as a threat to his own
people.
> Let's consider John F Kerry's lies...
>
> 867 fine young men have died in an effort to establish a measure
> of freedom and democracy in Iraq -- a war for which John F. Kerry
> voted and endorsed
Kerry authorized the use of force based on lies presented by the
administration and under the assumption that there would be an
international consensus on that line of action. Bush reneged on
the promise of a further UN Security Council resolution.
-- but compare that relatively small number to the
> tens of thousands of deaths that have resulted from Hanoi's human
> rights abuses against their citizens in Viet Nam and genocidal
> policies against the ethnic minorities. Since their so-called
> "liberation," the population of the Montagnards has been cut in half
> by execution, starvation, illness, and forced sterilization -- while
> that of the ethnic Kinh has doubled. The casualties of both the
> Iraqi and coalition forces do not equal the number who have died in
> "liberated" Viet Nam.
Over what period of time?
> Largely as a result of Senator John F. Kerry's
> false statements concerning the Viet Nam Human Rights Act and the
> renewal of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik amendment, the US has not
> implemented any sort of sanction. Neither the sanctions recommended
> by either the Viet Nam Human Rights Act or by the Jackson-Vanik
> Amendment require Hanoi to do anything not already guaranteed by the
> SRV Constitution. Why do you suppose Kerry opposes them? I have
> asked him. He won't say.
Liberalization of economic relations with Vietnam has done more to
curb human rights abuses than the misguided sanctions ever did.
Where are you getting your statistics?
> The European Union and Japan have both begun similar sanctions
> -- without asking John F. Kerry -- linking future aid to improvement
> in Viet Nam's human rights.
They have? Targetted how? Do the Vietnamese people support sanctions?
--Jeff
--
Americans will always do the right thing
- after they have exhausted every other
possibility. --Winston Churchill
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty
to the government when it deserves it.
--Mark Twain
Rain on a tin roof sounds like a drum.
We're marching for freedom today-ay!
So turn on your headlights
and sound your horn,
if people get in the way. --Neil Innes
Charlie Wolf
wrote:
And we noticed that you snipped all the parts that SENATOR John Kerry
said about Sadaam. Bush sent the the troops into Iraq - as he should
have. He did the right thing - Clinton didn't.
Regards,
>
dai...@hawaii.rr.com
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Liberalization of economic relations with Vietnam has done more to
> curb human rights abuses than the misguided sanctions ever did.
> Where are you getting your statistics?
Jeffery,
I've been getting my figures from a variety of credible
corroborating sources.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/vietnamdonors1203.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/vietnam/montagnards/
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=vietna
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/27/vietna8625.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/27/vietna8626.htm
http://hrw.org/press/2003/01/vietnam012103.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/vietnam0920.htm
http://hrw.org/reports/2002/vietnam/
http://hrw.org/press/2002/09/cambodia0925.htm
http://hrw.org/press/2002/04/vietnam0423.htm
http://hrw.org/press/2002/04/vietnam040402.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/09/viet0928.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/05/cambodia-0521.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/07/viet0726.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/montagnards1025.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/montagnards0218.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA410122002
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA410112002
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA410052004
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA030012002
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA230032004
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/khm-summary-eng
There is a thread of more than 100 news reports detailing events
in the Central Highlands since the peaceful Easter demonstrations.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=Da
i-Uy-72BC25.09183112042004%40orngca-news04.socal.rr.com&rnum=1&prev=/g
roups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3997755149d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26
safe%3Doff%26selm%3DDai-Uy-72BC25.09183112042004%2540orngca-news04.soc
al.rr.com
Take a few moments to read through a few of the above reports.
I'd be interested in your response. Your comments suggest that you
have been unaware of Hanoi's human rights abuses that have been
occuring for some time. What are your feelings having read through
the above?
-Dai Uy sends
--
Chas Hurst
"Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:cl6oe0161h9oe0967...@4ax.com...
Bush is the Prez, he lied to us, and he sent troops to Iraq. Kerry, Clinton,
or anyone else did not.
Jeffrey Turner
> In article <10enul1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Liberalization of economic relations with Vietnam has done more to
>>curb human rights abuses than the misguided sanctions ever did.
>>Where are you getting your statistics?
>
>
> Jeffery,
>
> I've been getting my figures from a variety of credible
> corroborating sources.
>
> http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/vietnamdonors1203.htm
"Now that Vietnam's economy is opening up, this is a good time for
donors to press for human rights improvements in Vietnam," said Sidney
Jones, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
"Economic reforms will be more sustainable if they are accompanied by
legal reform and basic human rights protections."
My feelings are that this seems to be a new phenomenon (a friend
traveled through Vietnam around 1999) and that US and western
corporations don't have the same relationship with Vietnam that there
was vis-a-vis South Africa and therefor that sanctions are likely to
be counterproductive. Sanctions against Vietnam are more likely to
entrench the position of the most freedom averse factions within the
Vietnamese government. As we saw in the Soviet Union it was the
thawing of economic relations that began with Nixon that allowed for
the ascension of more liberal political groups there. In Iran (and
also in Saddam Hussein's Iraq) it was threats to trade and to the
government itself that empowered the most reactionary elements
within those governments and resulted in crackdowns against human
rights. Governments, like individuals, are only likely to reform
their behaviour when they aren't being threatened. The imposition of
sanctions against the government of Vietnam would not only undercut
domestic Vietnamese opposition to their government but would serve to
hide the activities of the Vietnamese government from foreigners and
thus from foreign pressure to reform their behaviour. If the
government of Vietnam (and the economic interests that support it) see
a benefit in liberalizing politically then they will gradually do so
as long as their economic situation and their existence is not
threatened.
South Africa was a unique case. The people of South Africa supported
sanctions despite the short-term economic consequences because of the
extent to which the South African government was enmeshed in the world
economy. Because the Vietnamese economy is separate from the western
economy for the most part, the reaction there is likely to be quite
different from South Africa's.
We should press companies that deal with Vietnam to press for
political liberalization. That is where there is real leverage with
the government of Vietnam. Rather than cutting off all trade with
Vietnam, promise more trade in response to decreasing and ending human
rights violations. That approach seems to have worked well in the
case of Turkey where the possibility of membership in the European
Union seems to have significantly improved the treatment of the Kurds.
I think that that was one of the most influential factors in keeping
things from becoming ugly in eastern Europe, as well. If Vietnam sees
that an improved economic situation will result from liberalized
political policies then that will happen.
America
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:29:04 -0400, Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>And which instituted inspections to verify the unsubstantiated charges
>>when Bush invaded. If you're going to kill thousands of people and
>>disable tens of thousands more you should have proof, not just the
>>ramblings of Chalabis exiles.
>
>The terrorists killed over 3000 people on Sept 11, 2001; where was
>their proof?
No one from Iraq was ever shown to be involved with that in any way.
It was, in fact, an inside job.
You want to see the perps get away with it, too.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:29:04 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>when Bush invaded. If you're going to kill thousands of people and
>>disable tens of thousands more you should have proof, not just the
>>ramblings of Chalabis exiles.
>
> their proof?
That had nothing to do with Iraq, ask the 9/11 commission.
America
>...You always ...
The messenger is never the subject, but the message is the subject, to the honest.
You got duped because you don't know what fallacies are, and you want to see
innocents suffer and die by the thousands without really having any good reason.
dai...@hawaii.rr.com
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> dai...@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/vietnamdonors1203.htm
>
> "Now that Vietnam's economy is opening up, this is a good time for
> donors to press for human rights improvements in Vietnam," said Sidney
> Jones, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
> "Economic reforms will be more sustainable if they are accompanied by
> legal reform and basic human rights protections."
You don't indicate whether you agree or disagree with his
suggestions. I agree with him.
I'd like to suggest that you read the Viet Nam Human Rights Act.
(HR 2833 http://www.vietquoc.com/news2002/na062902hra.htm) ( HR 2368
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/vietnam/vietfree.htm) The act
does not mandate anything more than tying future non-humanitarian aid
to improvements in the area of human rights. It does not require
that the Vietnamese do anything that isn't already called for by
their own constitution.
> My feelings are that this seems to be a new phenomenon
The oppression of the Montagnards has been continuous since
1975. Normalizing trade has not lessened it. The BLT agreement has
not resulted in any improvement. Read the news reports that have
been published since Easter. Continuing to sit on our hands is
unconscionable.
> (a friend
> traveled through Vietnam around 1999) and that US and western
> corporations don't have the same relationship with Vietnam that there
> was vis-a-vis South Africa and therefor that sanctions are likely to
> be counterproductive. Sanctions against Vietnam are more likely to
> entrench the position of the most freedom averse factions within the
> Vietnamese government.
That has been the argument since normalization. For the ethnic
minorities, conditions have only grown worse. How long must we wait
for improvement in human rights?
> As we saw in the Soviet Union it was the
> thawing of economic relations that began with Nixon that allowed for
> the ascension of more liberal political groups there. In Iran (and
> also in Saddam Hussein's Iraq) it was threats to trade and to the
> government itself that empowered the most reactionary elements
> within those governments and resulted in crackdowns against human
> rights. Governments, like individuals, are only likely to reform
> their behaviour when they aren't being threatened.
Linking non-humanitarian aid to improvement in human rights is
not quite the same as trade sanctions.
> The imposition of
> sanctions against the government of Vietnam would not only undercut
> domestic Vietnamese opposition to their government but would serve to
> hide the activities of the Vietnamese government from foreigners and
> thus from foreign pressure to reform their behaviour. If the
> government of Vietnam (and the economic interests that support it) see
> a benefit in liberalizing politically then they will gradually do so
> as long as their economic situation and their existence is not
> threatened.
>
What trends have you seen in Viet Nam that suggests that this is
or will happen anytime within our lifetime?
> South Africa was a unique case. The people of South Africa supported
> sanctions despite the short-term economic consequences because of the
> extent to which the South African government was enmeshed in the world
> economy. Because the Vietnamese economy is separate from the western
> economy for the most part, the reaction there is likely to be quite
> different from South Africa's.
>
> We should press companies that deal with Vietnam to press for
> political liberalization. That is where there is real leverage with
> the government of Vietnam. Rather than cutting off all trade with
> Vietnam, promise more trade in response to decreasing and ending human
> rights violations.
Let's persuade Senator Kerry to release the Viet Nam Human
Rights Act, have it debated on the Senate floor, pass it, and give
your suggestion a try.
>That approach seems to have worked well in the
> case of Turkey where the possibility of membership in the European
> Union seems to have significantly improved the treatment of the Kurds.
> I think that that was one of the most influential factors in keeping
> things from becoming ugly in eastern Europe, as well. If Vietnam sees
> that an improved economic situation will result from liberalized
> political policies then that will happen.
>
> --Jeff
-Dai Uy sends
Jeffrey Turner
> In article <10eoq9o...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dai...@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
>
>
>>> http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/vietnamdonors1203.htm
>>
>>"Now that Vietnam's economy is opening up, this is a good time for
>>donors to press for human rights improvements in Vietnam," said Sidney
>>Jones, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
>>"Economic reforms will be more sustainable if they are accompanied by
>>legal reform and basic human rights protections."
>
> You don't indicate whether you agree or disagree with his
> suggestions. I agree with him.
I quoted it because I agree, we need to use economic leverage to push
things along.
> I'd like to suggest that you read the Viet Nam Human Rights Act.
> (HR 2833 http://www.vietquoc.com/news2002/na062902hra.htm) ( HR 2368
> http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/vietnam/vietfree.htm) The act
> does not mandate anything more than tying future non-humanitarian aid
> to improvements in the area of human rights. It does not require
> that the Vietnamese do anything that isn't already called for by
> their own constitution.
>
>>My feelings are that this seems to be a new phenomenon
>
> The oppression of the Montagnards has been continuous since
> 1975. Normalizing trade has not lessened it. The BLT agreement has
> not resulted in any improvement. Read the news reports that have
> been published since Easter. Continuing to sit on our hands is
> unconscionable.
OK.
>>(a friend
>>traveled through Vietnam around 1999) and that US and western
>>corporations don't have the same relationship with Vietnam that there
>>was vis-a-vis South Africa and therefor that sanctions are likely to
>>be counterproductive. Sanctions against Vietnam are more likely to
>>entrench the position of the most freedom averse factions within the
>>Vietnamese government.
>
> That has been the argument since normalization. For the ethnic
> minorities, conditions have only grown worse. How long must we wait
> for improvement in human rights?
I don't know. We should be using what leverage we have.
>>As we saw in the Soviet Union it was the
>>thawing of economic relations that began with Nixon that allowed for
>>the ascension of more liberal political groups there. In Iran (and
>>also in Saddam Hussein's Iraq) it was threats to trade and to the
>>government itself that empowered the most reactionary elements
>>within those governments and resulted in crackdowns against human
>>rights. Governments, like individuals, are only likely to reform
>>their behaviour when they aren't being threatened.
>
> Linking non-humanitarian aid to improvement in human rights is
> not quite the same as trade sanctions.
I'd support that. You'd claimed that Japan and Europe were imposing
sanctions.
>>The imposition of
>>sanctions against the government of Vietnam would not only undercut
>>domestic Vietnamese opposition to their government but would serve to
>>hide the activities of the Vietnamese government from foreigners and
>>thus from foreign pressure to reform their behaviour. If the
>>government of Vietnam (and the economic interests that support it) see
>>a benefit in liberalizing politically then they will gradually do so
>>as long as their economic situation and their existence is not
>>threatened.
>
> What trends have you seen in Viet Nam that suggests that this is
> or will happen anytime within our lifetime?
Honestly, I haven't kept up very much with things in Viet Nam. For
the most part that country has dropped off the radar in the US. I'm
trying to generalize from what I know of what has happened in other
countries. Profound changes rarely happen quickly. The US has
definitely acted most shamefully in the case of Viet Nam.
>>South Africa was a unique case. The people of South Africa supported
>>sanctions despite the short-term economic consequences because of the
>>extent to which the South African government was enmeshed in the world
>>economy. Because the Vietnamese economy is separate from the western
>>economy for the most part, the reaction there is likely to be quite
>>different from South Africa's.
>>
>>We should press companies that deal with Vietnam to press for
>>political liberalization. That is where there is real leverage with
>>the government of Vietnam. Rather than cutting off all trade with
>>Vietnam, promise more trade in response to decreasing and ending human
>>rights violations.
>
> Let's persuade Senator Kerry to release the Viet Nam Human
> Rights Act, have it debated on the Senate floor, pass it, and give
> your suggestion a try.
How is Kerry keeping it bottled up? The Democrats are the minority
party so he can't be a committee chair. I realize he's a convenient
target, but I think your accusations are misdirected.
>>That approach seems to have worked well in the
>>case of Turkey where the possibility of membership in the European
>>Union seems to have significantly improved the treatment of the Kurds.
>>I think that that was one of the most influential factors in keeping
>>things from becoming ugly in eastern Europe, as well. If Vietnam sees
>>that an improved economic situation will result from liberalized
>>political policies then that will happen.
--Jeff
--
America
>... talk so funny ...
You're hearing voices?
Are they telling you that God talks to Bush?
dai...@hawaii.rr.com
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> How is Kerry keeping it bottled up? The Democrats are the minority
> party so he can't be a committee chair. I realize he's a convenient
> target, but I think your accusations are misdirected.
The mechanics of moving bills through Congress remains something
of a mystery to me. Kerry is the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. This particular bill has to pass
through his subcommittee. Apparently, his ranking position gives him
the power to simply hold bills in his subcommittee. This situation
has been going on for three years. Considering that this is a major
election issue amongst both the Vietnamese Americans and Viet Nam
veterans communities, if it were untrue, Kerry would jump at the
chance to deny it and defend himself.
I can understand that you've not kept up with events in Viet
Nam. Our mainstream media has, for whatever reason, ignored the
issues. Most of the reports are from english language Asian and
European newspapers. Is this a matter of different perspectives and
priorities, newsprint space limitations, available air time, or
perhaps business and or political reasons?
Kerry has shown himself to be a staunch supporter and defender
of Hanoi. In addition to holding the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, he
has argued to extend the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The
Jackson-Vanik Amendment is aimed at free immigration. Hanoi goes to
great lengths to prevent Montagnards from escaping. Please read the
news reports since Easter.
Kerry is a deserving, if not convenient -- he's never responded
to my letters -- target, but he's not the only one.
This administration has ignored these ongoing human rights
abuses just as did the previous one. The Jackson-Vanik amendment (
Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974) is quite clear. If Viet Nam
prevents free immigration, the President is required by law to take
certain actions. Why is it not being applied. The US Commission on
Religious Freedom has several times called for Viet Nam to designated
a CPC -- Country of Particular Concern. The Department of State has
ignored their reports and recommendations and failed to do so. These
are actions the current administration is required by law to take.
They -- the President, and Secretary of State, like Kerry, do not
respond to my letters.
Try writing them yourself. See if you can get a reply.
-Dai Uy
--
Horvath
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:40:12 -0500, Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>... talk so funny ...
>
>You're hearing voices?
>
>Are they telling you that God talks to Bush?
Actually, I send text messages directly to his cell phone.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
America
>... 911 was and act of war ...
No, it wasn't.
Neither was the Reichstag fire.
drop GUN before emailing
>Date: 7/9/04 12:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>... 911 was and act of war ...
>
>No, it wasn't.
>
>Neither was the Reichstag fire.
9/11 was an ATTACK but it was not by Iraq.
>867 lives thrown away for Bush's lie
Yes !! but for those 867+ US lives we NOW have Saddam in custody. WHAT A DEAL.
BURN THE bush IN 2004 !!!
Digger, AKA Grumps (old and crusty)
hometown.aol.com/jynndi/myhomepage/profile.html
All errors; spilling, grimatical, ore tieping intenshunal.
J...@yahoo.com
<America> wrote in message
news:2e9se0pbsflgvm0i3...@4ax.com...
America
No, it wasn't.
Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote:
The bushkultie is such a coward.
Watch him cry, run, and hide.
Mac
>Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote:
>... 911 was and act of war ...
*******************************
"America" wrote:
>No, it wasn't.
*******************************
Very well; then, what is your personal opinion as to exactly what 911
was?
Please do not claim such was "poor piloting".
You have stated that 911 was not an act of war.
Please provide your specific statement as to what it was.
---Mac
America
>Very well; then, what is your personal opinion as to exactly what 911
>was?
It was a crime, according to the laws supported by the US Constitution.
Using it as an excuse for illegal invasions of uninvolved nations is merely
the compounding of that crime by its perpetrators.
Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote:
>... 911 was and act of war ...
No, it wasn't.
Mac
**********************************************
>On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:53:45 GMT, Mac <newsgrou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Very well; then, what is your personal opinion as to exactly what 911
>was?
"America":
>It was a crime, according to the laws supported by the US Constitution.
>Using it as an excuse for illegal invasions of uninvolved nations is merely
>the compounding of that crime by its perpetrators.
Given the circumstances, given the fatah and the declarations of war
already made by several entities, given the amount of support and
training such persons had been granted by Iraq, given the long history
of refusal to honor the Truce, given the long history of abuses with
the Food-for-Oil, and the bribery and millions siphoned off via the
United Nations, with all due respect to you, I agree it was a crime
AND ALSO an Act of War.
For several reasons, including the matter of years of refusal to honor
the conditions of the Truce, etc., etc., Saddam Hussein chose,
himself, to continue the war...
----Mac
***********************************************************************************
"America":
>No, it wasn't.
>Neither was the Reichstag fire.
America
>Given the circumstances, given the fatah and the declarations of war
>already made by several entities, given the amount of support and
>training such persons had been granted by Iraq [sic], given the long history
>of refusal to honor the Truce [sic], given the long history of abuses with
>the Food-for-Oil [sic], and the bribery and millions siphoned off via the
>United Nations [sic], with all due respect to you, I agree it was a crime
>AND ALSO an Act of War.
Well you're just mistaken.
Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was a crime.
Those who did it managed to stand down the US air defenses.
Those who did it bet on it with the stock market in advance.
Those who did it took immediate illegal advantage of it.
Those who did it are getting away with it.
It's a crime, and no excuse for war.
Mac <newsgrou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Very well; then, what is your personal opinion as to exactly what 911
>was?
It was a crime, according to the laws supported by the US Constitution.
Using it as an excuse for illegal invasions of uninvolved nations is merely
the compounding of that crime by its perpetrators.
Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote:
>... 911 was and act of war ...
No, it wasn't.
Neither was the Reichstag fire.
Matt Osborn <msosborn@spam_trap@attglobal.net> wrote: