How to Blame America
Robert Arvay
Adar I, 5763)
....Got that?
It's not Saddam who's the thug, it's Tony [Blair].
It's not the Baathist killers from Tikrit who are the bunch of
criminals, it's the Republican Party.
It's not the million-man murderer of Baghdad who's the new Hitler,
it's George W. Bush.
It's not the Iraqi one-party state with its government-controlled
media that "crushes dissent," it's the White House.
It's not the Wahhabis who are the fundamentalists, it's Bush, Blair
and the other Christians.
It's not Osama bin Laden who's the terrorist, it's American foreign
policy.
Supporting the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is
"pacifist," but it's "racist" for America to disagree with the UN,
....
The new Universal Theory, ... is that, whatever the problem, American
imperialist cowboy aggression is to blame.
.... if you believe that the first non-imperialist great power in
modern history is the source of all the world's woes, then logic is
irrelevant. "It's all about oil"?
Yes, for the French, whose stake in Iraqi oil is far more of a
determining factor than America's ever has been or will be.
"America created Saddam"? No, not really, the French and Germans and
Russians have sold him far more stuff, and Paris built him that
reactor which would have made him a nuclear power by now, if the
Israelis hadn't destroyed it in the Eighties.
But, as Colin Powell and Jack Straw have surely learned by now,
there's no real point doing the patient line-by-line rebuttal:
Nobody's interested in French oil contracts or German arms sales or
even Saddamite corpse tallies because it doesn't fit into the
Universal Theory which insists that everything can be explained by the
Evil of America.
george.fleming2
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 19/2/03 11:45 pm:
> "America created Saddam"? No, not really, the French and Germans and
> Russians have sold him far more stuff, and Paris built him that
> reactor which would have made him a nuclear power by now, if the
> Israelis hadn't destroyed it in the Eighties.
If you lived in a country who had just installed thei first reactor and
Isreal bombed it would you be angry Robert?.............GF
Steve Marshall
is that the Iraqis weren't involved with the 9/11 attacks, the
terrorists were almost exclusively from your "allies" Saudi Arabia
(and even Kuwait). Religious zealotry knows no national boundaries,
but in this case you're blaming the wrong brand of Arabs.
The second is that Iraq doesn't represent all Arab peoples, but if
you're seen by the Arab people as deliberately waging war on their
neighbor's civilians, especially their children, then you not only
poison their attitude towards you, you harden their heart towards all
things American. You'll be seen as the aggressors, the imperialists,
the infidels waging a Naziesque genocidal campaign on Arabs, and it
won't be just the Arabs that see it like that.
The third is that one of the reasons you're going after Saddam is
supposedly because he's killed Kurdish and opposition Iraqi civilians,
including children. So your new position is that Saddam can't kill
his people's noncombatants, only the U.S. can kill his people's
noncombatants? That will be a tough position to defend later, don't
you think?
The fourth is that even your own CIA says Saddam isn't a threat, and
even a WMD equipped Iraq won't be a threat unless they are attacked
(Iraq's most likely agressor was assumed to be Israel, who has well
over 100 nukes, all produced illegally and in violation of several
treaties). The whole premise that you need to "go in there and get
him" is bullshit. Iraq has never attacked the U.S. and they even
asked for, and received, your permission before they invaded Kuwait
(do a Google search on the name of your ambassador, April Glaspie, and
see what she told Congress about that while under oath).
The fifth is that you're acting just like the U.S. predicted the
Soviet Union would act if the U.S. wasn't there to balance them out.
"Imperialist aggressor" is not a role you should feel comfortable
playing.
Maybe in the end it doesn't really matter that much to the Iraqi
children. The International Red Cross-Red Cresent published a report
about 5 years ago that said U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq had killed
about 500,000 civilians, the majority of that being children, because
you wouldn't let them import the medicines they need. So you're
already acting like Stalin in the '30's when he starved 20 million
people to death, so why shouldn't you act like the imperialist Nazis.
It's one thing to wage war on legitimate military targets and
combatants. It's something else entirely to ignore civilian
casualties or to deliberately harm civilians and you do your military
a great disservice to ask them to make war on noncombatants.
You need to open your eyes, there's a good reason why your government
is hated by a large majority of the planet's population, and it's not
because of envy.
ka kite
Steve
Rod
Ouch......Ramming home the shears!
Robert Arvay
"george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BA79CD47.11FF7%george....@ntlworld.com>...
You're darn right I would.
And if you were Israel, and Iraq were building a nuclear reactor,
would you be scared out of your wits?
Robert Arvay
Steve Marshall <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<69495vssc18mfb89j...@4ax.com>...
> There's a number of problems with your assessment, Robert. The first
> is that the Iraqis weren't involved with the 9/11 attacks...(snip)
I doubt they were. But the "assessment" was that there are some
things wrong with the pseudo-pacifist position. One would think they
could reserve one or two of their worldwide demonstrations to protest
Iraq's noncompliance with 1441, and maybe even to show a bit of mild
annoyance with his policy of torturing small children? Nah. Let's
blame the USA.
>
> The second is that Iraq doesn't represent all Arab peoples, but if
> you're seen by the Arab people as deliberately waging war on their
> neighbor's civilians, especially their children, then you not only
> poison their attitude towards you, you harden their heart towards all
> things American. You'll be seen as the aggressors, the imperialists,
> the infidels waging a Naziesque genocidal campaign on Arabs, and it
> won't be just the Arabs that see it like that.
Their hearts were already hardened sufficiently to rejoice at the
specter of 3,000 innocent Americans being murdered. The only thing we
can do to attenuate their hatred for us is to surrender to the Taliban
and become their slaves. And even that might not be enough. But ask
the recently liberated Afghan women how rotten Americans are. Nah.
They might disagree with you.
>
> The third is that one of the reasons you're going after Saddam is
> supposedly because he's killed Kurdish and opposition Iraqi civilians,
> including children...(snip)
Wrong. That's not a reason for war, it's to put matters in
perspective about the kind of enemy we face. Why are Saddam's
atrocities always described in the most sanitized possible way ("He's
killed a lot of people, he's not a nice guy," etc), while GWB's flaws
are always phrased in terms of "mass-murderer?" etc.
>
> The fourth is that even your own CIA says Saddam isn't a threat,
Very wrong. CIA said he is not an immediate threat at the moment, but
that if we wait for him to become an immediate threat, it will be too
late to stop him.
> and
> even a WMD equipped Iraq won't be a threat unless they are attacked
Oh sure. Just like North Korea, which has a history of reckless
violence and is now threatening to resume the Korean War with nukes.
Trusting them makes you feel secure and warm all over, doesn't it?
But those evil Americans, watch out for them.
> (Iraq's most likely agressor was assumed to be Israel, who has well
> over 100 nukes, all produced illegally and in violation of several
> treaties). The whole premise that you need to "go in there and get
> him" is bullshit. Iraq has never attacked the U.S. and they even
> asked for, and received, your permission before they invaded Kuwait
> (do a Google search on the name of your ambassador, April Glaspie, and
> see what she told Congress about that while under oath).
State Department has defied the president on many occasions. GWB is
finally doing something about that.
>
> The fifth is that you're acting just like the U.S. predicted the
> Soviet Union would act if the U.S. wasn't there to balance them out.
> "Imperialist aggressor" is not a role you should feel comfortable
> playing.
Again, ask the Afghans.
>
> Maybe in the end it doesn't really matter that much to the Iraqi
> children. The International Red Cross-Red Cresent published a report
> about 5 years ago that said U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq had killed
> about 500,000 civilians,
And Saddam Hussein spends not a nickel of his billions on them. Too
busy building palaces and buying nuclear-grade aluminum tubes.
> the majority of that being children, because
> you wouldn't let them import the medicines they need.
Malarkey. We even offered to administer the aid directly.
> So you're
> already acting like Stalin in the '30's when he starved 20 million
> people to death, so why shouldn't you act like the imperialist Nazis.
>
See above. Call Iraq bad, but call Americans Nazis and Stalinists.
In case you missed it, the North Koreans DID starve a million of their
people, and continue to do so to this day. Ahh, but those bad
Americans. Mustn't lose our focus, now.
> It's one thing to wage war on legitimate military targets and
> combatants. It's something else entirely to ignore civilian
> casualties or to deliberately harm civilians and you do your military
> a great disservice to ask them to make war on noncombatants.
It's Saddam who does this, not the USA. But again, let's just blame
America. No point in being proportional, is there?
>
> You need to open your eyes, there's a good reason why your government
> is hated by a large majority of the planet's population, and it's not
> because of envy.
>
Actually, it largely is envy. Even people who hate us want to live
here.
Yes, the USA has its faults. But to compare our flaws to Iraq's
atrocities shows a mindset that is out of touch with reality.
Something to do with the speck in one eye and a beam in the other.
God bless you!
george.fleming2
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 20/2/03 9:15 pm:
Not really if Iraq was just only going to use it to generate electricity.
Do you not think when Israel knocked out Iraq's reactor by missiles this
only stirred up more hatred in Saddam Hussain against israel and also gave
him more support from the 14 million Iraqi's
Susan Maneck
>would you be scared out of your wits?
Remember Robert, you want to keep this in proportion:
Israeli Nukes: 200
Arab Nukes: 0
Susan Maneck
>It's Saddam who does this, not the USA. But again, let's just blame
>America. No point in being proportional, is there?
>>
Dear Robert,
Okay, let's try and be proporitional here. We know the US killed over a hundred
thousand Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War. We also know that half a million died
subsequently due to sanctions. Why don't you give us some exact statistics as
to how many Americans that Saddam has killed? You can even go beyond that. Give
us some statistics as to who many Iraqis his Takriti thugs killed. Is it more
than those 600,000?
What exactly are the proportions here? And how many Iraqi lives can we expect
to be lost by war now? And can it compare to the number of those which Saddam
himself has killed? Or is this another case of "We kill the people to set them
free. Who put this price on their liberty?"
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030220193730...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >
> >It's Saddam who does this, not the USA. But again, let's just
blame
> >America. No point in being proportional, is there?
> >>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Okay, let's try and be proporitional here. We know the US killed
over a hundred
> thousand Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War.
I'd like a source for that figure. The estimates I recollect seeing
varied from 10 - 20K at most including an allowance for casualties on
sites bombed in Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army in Kuwait either
deserted or surrendered. There was very little resistance other than
some memorable armoured engagements - 73 Easting, Medina Ridge and the
attempt to attack the Marine flank. There were some engagements after
the ceasefire but none were above brigade size. Even on the Highway
of Death the actual death toll was low - the convoy was stopped by
bombing, most of the Iraqis fled across the desert on foot and the
column was then strafed and bombed.
>We also know that half a million died
> subsequently due to sanctions.
Because Saddam applied sanctions on them refusing to use the oil
revenues to buy food and medecines.
>Why don't you give us some exact statistics as
> to how many Americans that Saddam has killed? You can even go beyond
that. Give
> us some statistics as to who many Iraqis his Takriti thugs killed.
Is it more
> than those 600,000?
Who knows? But surely the point is that Iraq was ordered to give up
its WOMD and has refused to do so using every ruse and subterfuge it
could to preserve the programmes.
> What exactly are the proportions here? And how many Iraqi lives can
we expect
> to be lost by war now? And can it compare to the number of those
which Saddam
> himself has killed? Or is this another case of "We kill the people
to set them
> free. Who put this price on their liberty?"
The Iran/Iraq war probably caused in excess of one million deaths of
combatants. Add to that the toll of his own people, the Kuwaitis and
a few hundred Coalition soldiers in the Gulf War. As to casualties in
the coming war they are unlikely to be that high: -
Do you really think the Iraqi army will put up any real resistance?
Would you fight for Saddam? The army certainly didn't fight in Kuwait
and probably won't now - especially as there are still many survivors
of that war who, doubtless, have bored many with their memoirs.
The US/UK have air supremacy and no army can long survive when its
enemy owns the skies.
Iraqi tanks were decimated in 1991 - even then they were outclassed by
the Coalition. The US M1A1 and British Challenger were both able to
take out Iraqi tanks whilst still out of range of return fire.
Will the Kurds and Shia Muslims fight for Saddam if a foreign army is
rolling in to relieve them of that burden?
Who will come to Saddam's aid? Where is the cavalry?
We heard all these scare stories before the Gulf War - mass civilian
casualties from the bombing and there were none; thousands of allied
KIAs (actually only a few hundred) etc. etc. I remember the first
night when TV programmes were interrupted to bring us to
correspondents in Baghdad who hadn't the faintest idea what was
happening. When all aircraft returned safely from the first attacks
it was quite obvious that the war was over to all intents and purposes
for air superiority had been established from the first. Since 1991
Saddam has vainly sought to down Allied aircraft on patrol in the
no-fly zones and failed - his performance hasn't improved any. When
they go into Iraq it will be a repeat performance.
Paul Hammond
> Greetings;
>
> Steve Marshall <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<69495vssc18mfb89j...@4ax.com>...
> > There's a number of problems with your assessment, Robert. The first
> > is that the Iraqis weren't involved with the 9/11 attacks...(snip)
>
> I doubt they were. But the "assessment" was that there are some
> things wrong with the pseudo-pacifist position. One would think they
> could reserve one or two of their worldwide demonstrations to protest
> Iraq's noncompliance with 1441, and maybe even to show a bit of mild
> annoyance with his policy of torturing small children? Nah. Let's
> blame the USA.
I think you have a very peculiar idea of how "protest" works
if you think there can be this kind of nuanced response.
People are out on the streets because they feel *emotion*.
Because they are incensed by US arrogance, and fed up with
following US dictat.
Can you imagine the protest organisers saying to people
"Okay, everyone else is demonstrating against American
imperialist wars, so *our* demonstration, here in
Berlin is going to be the one that demonstrates
against Saddam's violence"? No-one would turn up.
Robert, if you can't get your pro-war people out
on the street, you can't really complain because
the people who passionately disagree with you
didn't take time out to represent your point of
view. That's not their job, mate.
> >
> > The second is that Iraq doesn't represent all Arab peoples, but if
> > you're seen by the Arab people as deliberately waging war on their
> > neighbor's civilians, especially their children, then you not only
> > poison their attitude towards you, you harden their heart towards all
> > things American. You'll be seen as the aggressors, the imperialists,
> > the infidels waging a Naziesque genocidal campaign on Arabs, and it
> > won't be just the Arabs that see it like that.
>
> Their hearts were already hardened sufficiently to rejoice at the
> specter of 3,000 innocent Americans being murdered. The only thing we
> can do to attenuate their hatred for us is to surrender to the Taliban
> and become their slaves. And even that might not be enough. But ask
> the recently liberated Afghan women how rotten Americans are. Nah.
> They might disagree with you.
Have you been keeping up with what has been happening
in Afghanistan since the war?
Anyway, the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is
stark - there, the US had a legitimate interest in weeding
out the Al Qaeda terrorists, and no-one was particularly
going to mourn the downfall of the Taliban. Here, there
is no such legitmate reason for US military invasion.
> >
> > The third is that one of the reasons you're going after Saddam is
> > supposedly because he's killed Kurdish and opposition Iraqi civilians,
> > including children...(snip)
>
> Wrong. That's not a reason for war, it's to put matters in
> perspective about the kind of enemy we face. Why are Saddam's
> atrocities always described in the most sanitized possible way ("He's
> killed a lot of people, he's not a nice guy," etc), while GWB's flaws
> are always phrased in terms of "mass-murderer?" etc.
Saddam's a mass murderer. He's not the only one. Why is he
at the top of George Bush's list is the interesting question.
> >
> > The fourth is that even your own CIA says Saddam isn't a threat,
>
> Very wrong. CIA said he is not an immediate threat at the moment, but
> that if we wait for him to become an immediate threat, it will be too
> late to stop him.
>
> > and
> > even a WMD equipped Iraq won't be a threat unless they are attacked
>
> Oh sure. Just like North Korea, which has a history of reckless
> violence and is now threatening to resume the Korean War with nukes.
> Trusting them makes you feel secure and warm all over, doesn't it?
> But those evil Americans, watch out for them.
>
I think I see a little foam forming at the corner of your
mouth there. Down a bit. There, got it. That's better.
> >
> > The fifth is that you're acting just like the U.S. predicted the
> > Soviet Union would act if the U.S. wasn't there to balance them out.
> > "Imperialist aggressor" is not a role you should feel comfortable
> > playing.
>
> Again, ask the Afghans.
Again, where's bin Laden?
> >
> > You need to open your eyes, there's a good reason why your government
> > is hated by a large majority of the planet's population, and it's not
> > because of envy.
> >
> Actually, it largely is envy. Even people who hate us want to live
> here.
>
> Yes, the USA has its faults. But to compare our flaws to Iraq's
> atrocities shows a mindset that is out of touch with reality.
> Something to do with the speck in one eye and a beam in the other.
>
Like comparing Israeli terrorism with Palestinian terrorism?
Yeah, *you're* the unbiased source we've all been waiting
for!
Paul
John R MacLeod
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03022...@posting.google.com...
> and no-one was particularly
> going to mourn the downfall of the Taliban.
Well I did and do a bit. In the context of recent Afghani history they
deserve a better fate than to become a meaningless hate word like 'Hitler'
or 'Stalinist'. They perhaps didn't deserve to remain in power but I think
they deserve some decent mourning.
According to the newspapers I read which might be accurate (who knows?) in
the mid-nineties 50,000 people were killed in Kabul alone by the feuding
warlords. Half the city destroyed as I heard it. Our American friends who
lost a much smaller number in New York would be well placed to appreciate
the horror of that kind of destruction. Before the Al-Qaeda connection
brought them to ruin the strange mixture known as the Taliban (what was more
important the religion or Pushtun nationalism?) had at least eradicated that
kind of large scale brutality over most of Afghanistan. It is sad that they
replaced it with a joyless and economically sterile culture. Of course it
is even sadder that the intervention of the Americans in the civil war
handed victory to an alliance including some of the very brutes who had
earlier devastated the country.
One can't help wondering what would have happened if instead of facing
implacable hostility from the so-called international community the Taliban
had been offered the hand of friendship and support in their early days?
Perhaps the reported musings of Mullah Omar as to whether Osama could be
considered a 'guest' and therefore entitled to total support and defence
might have come down on the side against Al-Qaeda.
I don't have any personal knowledge of Afghanistan and my sources are just
the popular press but if the story as told is near true the Taliban deserve
honour as decent people in great stress and trouble who arose to solve their
problems in the sure knowledge that God would aid them. They also serve as
a timely warning that those who trust to God are to be admired but those who
trust themselves to understand God will screw everything up.
If nothing else they deserve unstinting praise for finally getting rid of
that appalling statue which I'm sure would have irritated Buddha no end - if
it is possible for a Buddha to be irritated.
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030220193730...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> >
> >It's Saddam who does this, not the USA. But again, let's just blame
> >America. No point in being proportional, is there?
> >>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Okay, let's try and be proporitional here. We know the US killed over a hundred
> thousand Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War.
Surely you are not equating the killing of soldiers in combat with the
deliberate torture, maiming and killing of innocent civilians.
> We also know that half a million died
> subsequently due to sanctions.
No. They died because Saddam spends his billions$ NOT on helping his
people, but rather, on palaces and weapons.
> Why don't you give us some exact statistics as
> to how many Americans that Saddam has killed? You can even go beyond that. Give
> us some statistics as to who many Iraqis his Takriti thugs killed. Is it more
> than those 600,000?
Again, please do not say you are equating Saddam's atrocities with
combat casualties. But I do give you credit for recognizing that
Saddam is a thug.
>
> What exactly are the proportions here? And how many Iraqi lives can we expect
> to be lost by war now? And can it compare to the number of those which Saddam
> himself has killed? Or is this another case of "We kill the people to set them
> free. Who put this price on their liberty?"
How many lives will be lost when Saddam makes good on his promise to
take revenge on the USA? Will he nuke a city, or merely flood a
subway with toxins? Will he settle for bringing down a few
skyscrapers, or will he try to take out the capitol?
Both my question and yours deal in uncertainty. And this is the
terrible fix we are in. 100 years ago, being wrong about an enemy's
intentions and capabilities could cause a grievous war. Today, it can
mean the end of civilization and the onset of medieval barbarisms for
decades to come.
Whose assessment of the morality and practicality of war is right? Is
either of us in a position to afford getting it wrong? It's a matter
of judging character. Whom do we trust with the ultimate decision?
Some say that GWB is worse than Saddam, worse than Hitler, worse than
Stalin. I just happen not to share that view.
So we disagree. But we need not attribute evil motives to one another
in the process.
May God bless you and yours!
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030220193900...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> >And if you were Israel, and Iraq were building a nuclear reactor,
> >would you be scared out of your wits?
>
> Remember Robert, you want to keep this in proportion:
>
> Israeli Nukes: 200
> Arab Nukes: 0
>
While I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, your implication
is that the Arabs, who have done their best to push Israel into the
sea, and who routinely chant such things as, "Kill all the Jews
wherever you find them," are equally to be trusted with nuclear
weapons as are Israel, US and UK.
Some of us might feel otherwise.
God's blessings be upon you.
Susan Maneck
>is that the Arabs, who have done their best to push Israel into the
>sea, and who routinely chant such things as, "Kill all the Jews
>wherever you find them,"
I don't judge all Jews on the basis of what some ultra-Zionists chant in the
streets. Why would I judge Arabs on that basis?
> are equally to be trusted with nuclear
>weapons as are Israel, US and UK.
I don't think anybody who lies about their weapons and breaks their treaties
should be trusted. And Israel lied repeatedly about their nuke program until
one of those involved spilled the beans. Mossad then abducted him in Australia
and last I heard he is still rotting in prison in Israel for his courage.
Ten times as many Arabs have been killed by Israelis as the reverse.
Again, let's keep things in perspective.
The figure of 200 Israeli nukes, by the way, is very old one dating from a
decade ago.
Susan Maneck
>Surely you are not equating the killing of soldiers in combat with the
>deliberate torture, maiming and killing of innocent civilians.
I'm saying a dead body is a dead body. I'm sure we could have one this victory
with much less loss of life if we cared to. Most of those killed were barely
armed Shi'ite canon fodder. And we knew that. We just killed them and stopped
short of the Takriti thugs. Why? Because a democratic government in Iraq would
have been a Shi'ite one. So we deliberately kept the man in power and we want
to again punish the Iraqi people for this.
>They died because Saddam spends his billions$ NOT on helping his
>people, but rather, on palaces and weapons.
Sorry. Iraq was denied access to key medical supplies which caused this loss of
life.
>
>Again, please do not say you are equating Saddam's atrocities with
>combat casualties.
Just give us the statistic, Robert. How many people did Saddam kill vs. how
many did the US kill?
>How many lives will be lost when Saddam makes good on his promise to
>take revenge on the USA?
If we leave him alone there is almost no chance he will do this. The man is not
stupid.
>Will he nuke a city,
He doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
>or merely flood a
>subway with toxins?
You mean with the toxins we sold him? That is the reason we know he has these
weapons, you know. We got the receipt!
>100 years ago, being wrong about an enemy's
>intentions and capabilities could cause a grievous war. Today, it can
>mean the end of civilization and the onset of medieval barbarisms for
>decades to come.
>
So the solution is start a war with anyone you think might one day start a war
with you? Shall we treat all poor people in the US this way as well? Imprison
them before they have a chance to commit crimes?
>Whose assessment of the morality and practicality of war is right?
I'm willing to live with whatever decision the UN and the World Court makes,
simply because the cost of ignoring them is just too high.
> It's a matter
>of judging character.
That's exactly the problem I referred to earlier. You do not arrest and jail
people in the basis of their character but because they have committed a crime.
We either live by the rule of law or we are back to medieval barbarism.
>But we need not attribute evil motives to one another
>in the process.
Those who imagine they are above the law invariably commit evil.
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<b34522$1ikq4c$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030220193730...@mb-ch.aol.com...
(snip)
>
> >We also know that half a million died
> > subsequently due to sanctions.
>
> Because Saddam applied sanctions on them refusing to use the oil
> revenues to buy food and medecines.
Good! I thought I was the only one who understands this obvious fact.
But it is lost on those who are blind.
>
> >Why don't you give us some exact statistics as
> > to how many Americans that Saddam has killed? (snip)
>
> Who knows? But surely the point is that Iraq was ordered to give up
> its WOMD and has refused to do so using every ruse and subterfuge it
> could to preserve the programmes.
Another good point. At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein
agreed--- as a condition of stopping the fighting--- ie as a condition
of surrender--- that he would abide by the UN disarmament resolutions.
He has not done so. On the contrary, he has snubbed his nose. NONE
of the peace activists seems to have the slightest interest in this
fact. Instead, they think they have a good point by demanding that
Israel abide by UN resolutions to which it NEVER AGREED. Even if one
accepts their argument, (and I do accept that all UN resolutions
should be implemented--- by force when necessary) then one must
conclude that UN resolutions unenforced are therefore a mockery of
international law.
>
(snip)
>
> Do you really think the Iraqi army will put up any real resistance?
It would be negligent to assume they will not. The attack must
presuppose not only determined resistance, but anticipate
unforeseeable "surprises."
> Would you fight for Saddam? The army certainly didn't fight in Kuwait
> and probably won't now - especially as there are still many survivors
> of that war who, doubtless, have bored many with their memoirs.
>
> The US/UK have air supremacy and no army can long survive when its
> enemy owns the skies.
Actually, the Viet Cong did pretty well in this regard--- although
admittedly when the full force of air power was brought to bear, they
came scurrying to the peace table--- and in fact were on the verge of
surrender until the peace activists persuaded them to keep on killing.
>
> Iraqi tanks were decimated in 1991 - even then they were outclassed by
> the Coalition. The US M1A1 and British Challenger were both able to
> take out Iraqi tanks whilst still out of range of return fire.
One must anticipate that the Iraqi armor strategy has changed, and
that their tanks will be used as semi-mobile bunkers--- a poor use of
tanks, but their only scant hope of success.
> Will the Kurds and Shia Muslims fight for Saddam if a foreign army is
> rolling in to relieve them of that burden?
>
> Who will come to Saddam's aid? Where is the cavalry?
>
> We heard all these scare stories before the Gulf War - mass civilian
> casualties from the bombing and there were none; thousands of allied
> KIAs (actually only a few hundred) etc. etc. I remember the first
> night when TV programmes were interrupted to bring us to
> correspondents in Baghdad who hadn't the faintest idea what was
> happening. When all aircraft returned safely from the first attacks
> it was quite obvious that the war was over to all intents and purposes
> for air superiority had been established from the first. Since 1991
> Saddam has vainly sought to down Allied aircraft on patrol in the
> no-fly zones and failed - his performance hasn't improved any. When
> they go into Iraq it will be a repeat performance.
Okay, but one does not put men at risk--- even a slight risk---
without the ultimate degree of support. Even then, we must anticipate
heavy casualties beforehand. If one would not send his own son into
the most deadly part of the battle, he should not send another's son.
War is the next worst thing after slavery. I would not send my loved
ones into slavery if the option of war were available.
Robert Arvay
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03022...@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
>
> I think you have a very peculiar idea of how "protest" works
> if you think there can be this kind of nuanced response.
> People are out on the streets because they feel *emotion*.
> Because they are incensed by US arrogance, and fed up with
> following US dictat.
But if that emotion blinds them to what they should really be
protesting--- if it encourages a brutal ruthless thug to continue his
atrocities, then maybe the protesters might better employ their rage
where it belongs.
>
> Can you imagine the protest organisers saying to people
> "Okay, everyone else is demonstrating against American
> imperialist wars, so *our* demonstration, here in
> Berlin is going to be the one that demonstrates
> against Saddam's violence"? No-one would turn up.
Precisely my point. Blame America, but be "understanding" of the
personal pain which drives Saddam to torture children. Oh, the poor
boy must've had a deprived childhood. Bouquets, not bombs, will
change his attitude.
>
> Robert, if you can't get your pro-war people out
> on the street, you can't really complain because
> the people who passionately disagree with you
> didn't take time out to represent your point of
> view. That's not their job, mate.
I don't know any pro-war people. But I know lots who believe that
peace has a price, and that justice is not cheap.
> > >
> >...But ask
> > the recently liberated Afghan women how rotten Americans are. Nah.
> > They might disagree with you.
>
> Have you been keeping up with what has been happening
> in Afghanistan since the war?
Yes. We have brutalized those poor people--- forcing their girls to
become educated, allowing the men to shave and the women to unmask.
Oh, the horror of it all. Fortunately, the non-Taliban Afghans seem
willing to forgive.
>
> Anyway, the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is
> stark - there, the US had a legitimate interest in weeding
> out the Al Qaeda terrorists, and no-one was particularly
> going to mourn the downfall of the Taliban. Here, there
> is no such legitmate reason for US military invasion.
>
But the peaceniks were no less adamant then than they are now. It's
just that their numbers have grown.
> > >
> Saddam's a mass murderer. He's not the only one. Why is he
> at the top of George Bush's list is the interesting question.
And that question would remain NO MATTER WHO moves to the top of the
list. You just can't satisfy the snipers.
> > >
(snip)
>
> I think I see a little foam forming at the corner of your
> mouth there. Down a bit. There, got it. That's better.
I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
(SNIP)
>
> Again, where's bin Laden?
My guess is that his "I want to die in the belly of the eagle," speech
means that he wants to commit sui/homicide in Wash DC.
> > >
(snip)
> >
> > Yes, the USA has its faults. But to compare our flaws to Iraq's
> > atrocities shows a mindset that is out of touch with reality.
> > Something to do with the speck in one eye and a beam in the other.
>
> Like comparing Israeli terrorism with Palestinian terrorism?
Like comparing what the Palestinians will do to Israel the moment they
can, (ie, "Kill all the Jews") with the Israeli measured responses to
terrorism.
>
> Yeah, *you're* the unbiased source we've all been waiting
> for!
>
When did I claim to be unbiased?
Paul Hammond
>
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030220193730...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> > >
> > >It's Saddam who does this, not the USA. But again, let's just blame
> > >America. No point in being proportional, is there?
> > >>
> >
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > Okay, let's try and be proporitional here. We know the US killed over a hundred
> > thousand Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War.
>
> Surely you are not equating the killing of soldiers in combat with the
> deliberate torture, maiming and killing of innocent civilians.
>
Dead is dead, Robert, and it matters little either way to
the dead person that *you* can distinguish the "good"
deaths from the "bad".
This is you wanting a double standard again, isn't it,
where people you like get judged on a scale more lenient
than people you dislike!
> > Why don't you give us some exact statistics as
> > to how many Americans that Saddam has killed? You can even go beyond that. Give
> > us some statistics as to who many Iraqis his Takriti thugs killed. Is it more
> > than those 600,000?
>
> Again, please do not say you are equating Saddam's atrocities with
> combat casualties. But I do give you credit for recognizing that
> Saddam is a thug.
> >
> > What exactly are the proportions here? And how many Iraqi lives can we expect
> > to be lost by war now? And can it compare to the number of those which Saddam
> > himself has killed? Or is this another case of "We kill the people to set them
> > free. Who put this price on their liberty?"
>
> How many lives will be lost when Saddam makes good on his promise to
> take revenge on the USA? Will he nuke a city, or merely flood a
> subway with toxins? Will he settle for bringing down a few
> skyscrapers, or will he try to take out the capitol?
>
Do you have any evidence that he is planning to do these
things? Grown up countries need more than rumours and
nightmares to start wars.
As far as I am aware, Saddam has nothing that is any direct
threat to America.
> Both my question and yours deal in uncertainty. And this is the
> terrible fix we are in. 100 years ago, being wrong about an enemy's
> intentions and capabilities could cause a grievous war. Today, it can
> mean the end of civilization and the onset of medieval barbarisms for
> decades to come.
>
Oh, please!
> Whose assessment of the morality and practicality of war is right? Is
> either of us in a position to afford getting it wrong? It's a matter
> of judging character. Whom do we trust with the ultimate decision?
> Some say that GWB is worse than Saddam, worse than Hitler, worse than
> Stalin. I just happen not to share that view.
>
Me neither. I said so just a few posts ago. Hands up anyone
here who thinks Bush is worse than Saddam?
To my mind, Bush is just ignorant and boorish, while Saddam
is actively evil - that makes Saddam worse. But, Bush is
President of America - he can do more damage.
> So we disagree. But we need not attribute evil motives to one another
> in the process.
>
Has someone done this already?
Paul
george.fleming2
sma...@aol.com wrote on 22/2/03 1:22 am:
> Sorry. Iraq was denied access to key medical supplies which caused this loss
> of life.
If I remember rightly was not Iraq allowed to sell enought oil to pay for
these medical supplies, but Saddam used the money to pay his national
Gusard and the upkeep of his palaces............GF
Paul Hammond
> >While I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, your implication
> >is that the Arabs, who have done their best to push Israel into the
> >sea, and who routinely chant such things as, "Kill all the Jews
> >wherever you find them,"
>
> I don't judge all Jews on the basis of what some ultra-Zionists chant in the
> streets. Why would I judge Arabs on that basis?
>
But, you have to remember that Robert judges the Arabs on his
"bad people"'s scales, and the Jews on his "good people"'s scales,
and that anyone who thinks that everyone ought to be on the
same scales is being fooled by Lucifer.
Recall, Arabs have a "different mindset" to the rest of humanity,
and Robert thinks he proved that to us months ago, even though
few here actually agreed with him.
Remember, Palestinian terror is much worse than Israeli
terror, because those Palestinians are Palestinians, and
they aren't defending their own homeland like the Jewish
Israelis are. And Robert will shout "moral equivalence"
and "repugnant argument" at anyone who doesn't agree.
Paul
Paul Hammond
>
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> (snip)
> >
> > I think you have a very peculiar idea of how "protest" works
> > if you think there can be this kind of nuanced response.
> > People are out on the streets because they feel *emotion*.
> > Because they are incensed by US arrogance, and fed up with
> > following US dictat.
>
> But if that emotion blinds them to what they should really be
> protesting--- if it encourages a brutal ruthless thug to continue his
> atrocities, then maybe the protesters might better employ their rage
> where it belongs.
In your opinion. Not shared by me, or others.
It did my heart good to see such widespread protest
about the current mindless march towards a pointless
war.
> >
> > Can you imagine the protest organisers saying to people
> > "Okay, everyone else is demonstrating against American
> > imperialist wars, so *our* demonstration, here in
> > Berlin is going to be the one that demonstrates
> > against Saddam's violence"? No-one would turn up.
>
> Precisely my point. Blame America, but be "understanding" of the
> personal pain which drives Saddam to torture children. Oh, the poor
> boy must've had a deprived childhood. Bouquets, not bombs, will
> change his attitude.
>
Try actually reading what I have written sometime. This is
nothing but poor emotionalism on your part. Protesting against
Bush's war does not imply sympathy for the butcher of Baghdad.
Neither does it imply "lack of respect" for the victims of
9/11. Don't talk to *me* about vilification!
>
> > Robert, if you can't get your pro-war people out
> > on the street, you can't really complain because
> > the people who passionately disagree with you
> > didn't take time out to represent your point of
> > view. That's not their job, mate.
>
> I don't know any pro-war people. But I know lots who believe that
> peace has a price, and that justice is not cheap.
>
You don't know yourself?
You have whined because you couldn't get your people
out to protest as you wish. That is not the job of the
people who oppose the war, it is the job of people
like you, who think gung-ho invasion of Iraq is the
bees knees.
Quit whining because most people don't agree with you.
> > >
> > >...But ask
> > > the recently liberated Afghan women how rotten Americans are. Nah.
> > > They might disagree with you.
> >
> > Have you been keeping up with what has been happening
> > in Afghanistan since the war?
>
> Yes. We have brutalized those poor people--- forcing their girls to
> become educated, allowing the men to shave and the women to unmask.
> Oh, the horror of it all. Fortunately, the non-Taliban Afghans seem
> willing to forgive.
>
I meant that everything in the garden of Afghanistan is
certainly not rosy ever since the end of the Taliban. you
seem to be painting the natives as simply eternally and
unquestioningly grateful for the fleeting attention of
the superpower to their part of the world, for reasons
that have everything to do with US interests in self-
protection, and nothing to do with concern for the
rights of Afghan women.
Now, never talk to me about "vilifying your oppostion"
again after your sarcastic tone to me in the paragraph
above. I am not stupid just because you are missing
my point.
>
> > Anyway, the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is
> > stark - there, the US had a legitimate interest in weeding
> > out the Al Qaeda terrorists, and no-one was particularly
> > going to mourn the downfall of the Taliban. Here, there
> > is no such legitmate reason for US military invasion.
> >
> But the peaceniks were no less adamant then than they are now. It's
> just that their numbers have grown.
>
That's true. We were wrong then, on balance. We are certainly
right now. the US has no legitimate reason to be in Iraq.
You might be lucky again, but could be heading for a new
Vietnam.
Actually, I was not convinced that bombing Afghanistan
was wrong. Like I say, in pursuing Al Qaida, the US
and others had a legitimate reason for going in to
Afghanistan. Iraq is totally different.
> > >
>
> > Saddam's a mass murderer. He's not the only one. Why is he
> > at the top of George Bush's list is the interesting question.
>
> And that question would remain NO MATTER WHO moves to the top of the
> list. You just can't satisfy the snipers.
Not true. It is just that Saddam is a curious target, and the
justifications of Bush do not explain his sudden focus
on war in Iraq.
> >
> > Again, where's bin Laden?
>
> My guess is that his "I want to die in the belly of the eagle," speech
> means that he wants to commit sui/homicide in Wash DC.
I think he prefers other people to die for him - but his chances
of achieving this are slim, I feel.
> > > >
> (snip)
> > >
> > > Yes, the USA has its faults. But to compare our flaws to Iraq's
> > > atrocities shows a mindset that is out of touch with reality.
> > > Something to do with the speck in one eye and a beam in the other.
> >
> > Like comparing Israeli terrorism with Palestinian terrorism?
>
> Like comparing what the Palestinians will do to Israel the moment they
> can, (ie, "Kill all the Jews") with the Israeli measured responses to
> terrorism.
>
Susan just told you about this. Using extremists as representative
for Arabs, but dismissing Jews who say the same about Arabs as
not representative is just the latest manifestion of your
application of double standards in your political analysis.
> > Yeah, *you're* the unbiased source we've all been waiting
> > for!
> >
> When did I claim to be unbiased?
>
When you said that your opponents had a "mindset that is out
of touch with reality" because they don't have your double
standards?
Paul
george.fleming2
Dont listen to this little English faggot who still lives with his mummy.
This little coward would shit himself had he been called up to serve his
country. The only time he is brave is in his littl bedroom with his little
computer playing games with his poofy little Faggot friends....GF
in article c977f97b.0302...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 22/2/03 6:40 pm:
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030221201207...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> >While I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, your implication
> >is that the Arabs, who have done their best to push Israel into the
> >sea, and who routinely chant such things as, "Kill all the Jews
> >wherever you find them,"
>
> I don't judge all Jews on the basis of what some ultra-Zionists chant in the
> streets. Why would I judge Arabs on that basis?
That was not my implication. Rather, you stated that Israel has 200
nukes (how did you get THAT number?), and I took your implication to
be that Israel would be (is?) as reckless with them as Iraq, Syria,
Libya, PLO etc would be. And I simply stated that I do not share that
opinion. But, then, let's hope we never find out what Hussein and
Gaddhafi and Damascus might do with them, if given the opportunity.
>
> > are equally to be trusted with nuclear
> >weapons as are Israel, US and UK.
>
> I don't think anybody who lies about their weapons and breaks their treaties
> should be trusted.
Finally. A criticism of Saddam.
> And Israel lied repeatedly about their nuke program until
> one of those involved spilled the beans. Mossad then abducted him in Australia
> and last I heard he is still rotting in prison in Israel for his courage.
The flimsiest of allegations against Israel seem to be believed
without question. The most obvious of atrocities by the likes of
Saddam Hussein seem to get a free pass. I just do not understand it.
>
> Ten times as many Arabs have been killed by Israelis as the reverse.
> Again, let's keep things in perspective.
This measurement might make sense if the deliberate targeting and
killing of babies (along with the calculated intent to achieve maximum
civilian casualties) were comparable to the measured response to
terrorism, where at least some effort is made to reduce casualties to
a minimum.
To use an analogy, more Japanese were killed by Americans than the
reverse in World War II.
Does that mean that the Japanese were right and we were wrong? Should
we all be worshipping the Showa Emperor?
Or to put it more relevantly, Israel is outnumbered by more than ten
to one in every conflict it faces. In war, that's called a
target-rich environment, which often is a sort of tongue-in-cheek
euphemism for, "we're surrounded and about to be overrun." (See
anecdote below.) But let's measure length in meters, not in grams.
Raw numbers can be used misleadingly.
>
> The figure of 200 Israeli nukes, by the way, is very old one dating from a
> decade ago.
Whose figures?
May God's blessings be upon you.
(Anecdote: Korean war. Two American fighter jets are bounced by
enemy Mig fighter jets. One pilot panicks. "There must be at least a
dozen of them," he warns his fellow. The other replies, "Yeah. And
they're all ours."
Another anecdote. WWII, Leyte Gulf, Japanese battleships have mauled
an under-gunned American fleet. Sailor on badly damaged, barely
floating American ship notices that the Japanese battleships are
withdrawing from the engagement. "Hey," he alerts his fellow sailors,
"they're getting away!")
Robert Arvay
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03022...@posting.google.com>...
Well, excuse me for having an opinion :)
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030221202253...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> >
> >Surely you are not equating the killing of soldiers in combat with the
> >deliberate torture, maiming and killing of innocent civilians.
>
> I'm saying a dead body is a dead body.
Equating a dead murderer with his dead victim?
> I'm sure we could have one this victory
> with much less loss of life if we cared to.
If that is your opinion, then so be it. Are you aware that we could
have, were we the evil monsters some depict us as, killed far GREATER
numbers of Iraqis also? Most of the enemy mass casualties came early
in the battle, when the possibility of American mass casualties had
yet to be prevented. At that stage of the battle, the obligation of
the generals was toward their own troops first.
Are you aware that we could have levelled Baghdad? That we could have
set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire-- oh, wait-- Saddam did that.
Mustn't go there.
But why no mention that Saddam could have easily killed far fewer
Kuwaitis than he did? Why is the UN so silent on that matter?
> Most of those killed were barely
> armed Shi'ite canon fodder. And we knew that. We just killed them and stopped
> short of the Takriti thugs. Why? Because a democratic government in Iraq would
> have been a Shi'ite one. So we deliberately kept the man in power and we want
> to again punish the Iraqi people for this.
If America's critics were half as cynical of Saddam as they are of the
USA, then I might begin to understand. Sure, Saddam is a maniacal
sadistic murderer, but let's focus on America's flaws.
>
> >They died because Saddam spends his billions$ NOT on helping his
> >people, but rather, on palaces and weapons.
>
> Sorry. Iraq was denied access to key medical supplies which caused this loss of life.
I'd like to see some supporting facts on this. But it is no secret at
all that Saddam spent his money on palaces, not on his population.
Strange, how he could smuggle in sophisticated, forbidden rocket
engines (at the very least), but not medicines.
>
> >
> >Again, please do not say you are equating Saddam's atrocities with
> >combat casualties.
>
> Just give us the statistic, Robert. How many people did Saddam kill vs. how
> many did the US kill?
How many criminals did the police kill last year in the USA? Does
that provide an adequate measure of whether the criminals are to
blame?
>
> >How many lives will be lost when Saddam makes good on his promise to
> >take revenge on the USA?
>
> If we leave him alone there is almost no chance he will do this. The man is not stupid.
>
> >Will he nuke a city,
>
> He doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
>
> >or merely flood a
> >subway with toxins?
>
> You mean with the toxins we sold him? That is the reason we know he has these
> weapons, you know. We got the receipt!
Susan--- whether or not you intend it, you're making your case on the
supposition that we can trust Saddam--- either because he cannot kill
us (yet) or would not do so if he could (comforting thought). But the
real case to be made is that Iraq is a conquered nation, obliged by UN
resolutions (to which Iraq agreed) to disarm, and to pro-actively
demonstrate its disarmament.
Instead, you seem to keep equating Al Capone with Murphy the
pickpocket, both of them evil men indeed, but on which should we focus
first?
>
> >100 years ago, being wrong about an enemy's
> >intentions and capabilities could cause a grievous war. Today, it can
> >mean the end of civilization and the onset of medieval barbarisms for
> >decades to come.
>
> So the solution is start a war with anyone you think might one day start a war
> with you? Shall we treat all poor people in the US this way as well? Imprison
> them before they have a chance to commit crimes?
My point was that, whichever way we might miscalculate, the
consequences could be INcalculable. We are walking a tightrope
between reckless use of force on the one hand, and allowing ourselves
to be nuked on the other hand. The best balance, in my mind, would be
for the world to present a unified front against the likes of Saddam,
to make him believe without doubt that he must disarm or BE disarmed
by all necessary means. Faced with that choice, Saddam would be, as
you say, not stupid.
But that unified front is not to be. Therefore, instead of the
certainty of overwhelming force being employed against him, Saddam is
encouraged to continue to delay and dissemble, hoping that the
alliance will disintegrate, or that politics will undo the UN's
effectiveness to enforce its resolutions--- and allow him to continue
his ways.
Given that, each of us must decide whom we can trust. For some, their
trust is placed in the UN. For others, it's in Bush and Blair. For
yet others, it's in Saddam and Kim.
For me, it's in Jesus.
>
> >Whose assessment of the morality and practicality of war is right?
>
> I'm willing to live with whatever decision the UN and the World Court makes,
> simply because the cost of ignoring them is just too high.
>
> > It's a matter
> >of judging character.
>
> That's exactly the problem I referred to earlier. You do not arrest and jail
> people in the basis of their character but because they have committed a crime.
> We either live by the rule of law or we are back to medieval barbarism.
And this applies to the current situation, how? This is not a case of
law enforcement. This is a matter of extreme danger to civilization.
If you wish to use the crime analogy, it is a crime in progress, not
the jury deliberations. Decisive action must be taken, and soon.
Without divine guidance, the decision is sure to be the wrong one, and
a disastrous one.
>
> >But we need not attribute evil motives to one another
> >in the process.
>
> Those who imagine they are above the law invariably commit evil.
>
All the more reason to bring Saddam to heel. Or GWB. Depending on
your point of view.
May God be with us!
Paul Hammond
> Robert,
>
> Dont listen to this little English faggot who still lives with his mummy.
> This little coward would shit himself had he been called up to serve his
> country. The only time he is brave is in his littl bedroom with his little
> computer playing games with his poofy little Faggot friends....GF
>
George,
I know Robert well enough to know that you won't get anywhere
talking about me like that to him.
Go play with the cars in the street.
Paul
Rod
Dear Paul
Our inspection teams have searched the proceeding post high and low
and can find nothing worthy of response.
Under the Geneva Convention it is prohibited to engage in a battle of
wits with unarmed opponents.
Your poofy little Faggot friend.
Rod.
Susan Maneck
>Equating a dead murderer with his dead victim?
Dear Robert,
The Shi'ite canon fodder we killed in Iraq were not murderers, they were
victims. I just came back from visiting a friend of mine who is a Gulf War
Veteran. She described to me how she entered an underground bunker full of dead
bodies, killed by US bombing. In the middle of the room was an open Qur'an, but
not a gun in the place. She said it took an eighteen wheller to carry all the
dead bodies away in that place.
That experience eventually led her to embrace Islam.
warmest, Susan
Dermod Ryder
"george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BA7D7F4C.12C6A%george....@ntlworld.com...
>
> Dont listen to this little English faggot who still lives with his
mummy.
> This little coward would shit himself had he been called up to serve
his
> country.
Thus speaks our brave submariner renowned for his nautical prowess in
sinking 15 German freighters. Unfortunately he sank them in 1965 but
don't let that mere trivia deter your recognising his warrior skills.
>The only time he is brave is in his littl bedroom with his little
> computer playing games with his poofy little Faggot friends....GF
So what games do you play? Paul has friends but you have to play with
yourself.
Susan Maneck
>in the battle, when the possibility of American mass casualties had
>yet to be prevented.
Yes, I know. We killed the cannon fodder Saddam sent to the front lines who
hardly had any weapons. But we stopped just short of attacking the crack
Takriti troops which actually keep him in power. We not only weren't willing to
eliminate Saddam ourselves at the time, we fixed things so the Iraqi people
couldn't eliminate him themselves.
>But why no mention that Saddam could have easily killed far fewer
>Kuwaitis than he did?
Again, compare the figures. How many Kuwaitis did he kill versus how many
Iraqis did we kill?
> But it is no secret at
>all that Saddam spent his money on palaces, not on his population.
>How many people did Saddam kill vs. how
>> many did the US kill?
>
>How many criminals did the police kill last year in the USA?
Those Shi'ites we killed weren't criminals. In fact, they don't like Sadam
anymore than you do.
>Susan--- whether or not you intend it, you're making your case on the
>supposition that we can trust Saddam--- either because he cannot kill
>us (yet) or would not do so if he could (comforting thought).
On the contrary. My case rest on the presupposition that civilized people don't
kill others because of what they imagine they might do.
>But the
>real case to be made is that Iraq is a conquered nation, obliged by UN
>resolutions (to which Iraq agreed) to disarm, and to pro-actively
>demonstrate its disarmament.
And it is up to the UN, not the US to enforce those resolutions. To do so
without their sanctions makes us vigilantes at best.
>My point was that, whichever way we might miscalculate, the
>consequences could be INcalculable.
Then why don't we just skip the calculations and just do what is right?
> We are walking a tightrope
>between reckless use of force on the one hand, and allowing ourselves
>to be nuked on the other hand.
Sorry, Saddam doesn't have nukes. And we don't have to trust him to determine
that. There is no way he had access to the resources to develope one.
>Given that, each of us must decide whom we can trust. For some, their
>trust is placed in the UN. For others, it's in Bush and Blair. For
>yet others, it's in Saddam and Kim.
>For me, it's in Jesus.
And Jesus says break all international laws to fight an aggressive war against
someone who hasn't attacked us? I must have missed that in the Gospels
somewhere. Maybe I just got too bogged down with that 'love your enemy' and
'turn-the-other-cheek' business.
>
>And this applies to the current situation, how? This is not a case of
>law enforcement. This is a matter of extreme danger to civilization.
Nonsense. Saddam is a two-bit hood, and one without any real muscle at that. He
is a danger to his own people, but not to us. Unless, his back is against the
wall. Then we can expect our troops to suffer the effects of the chemical
weapons we sold him.
He is certainly no threat to civilization!
>Without divine guidance, the decision is sure to be the wrong one, and
>a disastrous one.
I know what divine guidance our scriptures give? What do yours say?
>> Those who imagine they are above the law invariably commit evil.
>>
>All the more reason to bring Saddam to heel. Or GWB. Depending on
>your point of view.
International law is determined by the World Court and the United Nations.
Anyone who acts apart from their authorization is a vigilante and therefore a
criminal.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>nukes (how did you get THAT number?),
Dear Robert,
The number is based on analysis of the 1986 photographs taken by Mordechai
Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician, who first fully exposed Israel's secret
nuclear program. US intelligence, however, places the number of nuclear
weapons at between 75-130. But given the fact that for decades they failed to
uncover this nuke program in the first place, one wonders how much credibility
to give them.
>I took your implication to
>be that Israel would be (is?) as reckless with them as Iraq, Syria,
>Libya, PLO etc would be.
I think whatever country feels the most desperate will use them first. However,
neither of those Arab countries have such weapons, whereas Israel does.
>
>> I don't think anybody who lies about their weapons and breaks their
>treaties
>> should be trusted.
>
>Finally. A criticism of Saddam.
I've made plenty of criticisms of Saddam if you were listening carefully. But
this particular criticism was of Israel who had made an agreement with France
not to use their technical help to build atomic weapons or reprocess any
plutonium. In 1958 when U-2 overflights spotted the nuclear facility they
were variously told it was a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a
metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960
that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful
purposes."
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they
were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there,
largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits.
(Does any of this sound familiar?) The Israelis went so far as to install false
control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed
certain areas of the facility. (I wonder if Saddam thought of this?)
>
>> And Israel lied repeatedly about their nuke program until
>> one of those involved spilled the beans. Mossad then abducted him in
>Australia
>> and last I heard he is still rotting in prison in Israel for his courage.
>>The flimsiest of allegations against Israel seem to be believed
>without question.
This is hardly flimsy. I couldn't remember the guys name last night but he is
Mordechai Vanunu and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for revealing this
information. You can read about it here: http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/
warmest, Susan
Dermod Ryder
> >er, you stated that Israel has 200
> >nukes (how did you get THAT number?),
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> The number is based on analysis of the 1986 photographs taken by
Mordechai
> Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician, who first fully exposed
Israel's secret
> nuclear program. US intelligence, however, places the number of
nuclear
> weapons at between 75-130. But given the fact that for decades they
failed to
> uncover this nuke program in the first place, one wonders how much
credibility
> to give them.
That Israel had nuclear weapons was well known to US Intelligence
Agencies but the information was not placed in the public domain. On
12 October 1973 an Israeli ground controller ordered two Israeli
pilots, in plain language, to "down" a US SR71 Blackbird flying over
the Negev Desert. The information gleaned by the overflight included
confirmation that the Israelis had nuclearised thirteen Jericho
missiles with 20 kiloton weapons for possible use in or near the Golan
if the Syrian armour had succeeded in breaking through. Nixon, in
accordance with treaty obligations, reported this information to
Brezhnev who, in turn, despatched nuclear warheads to Egypt - these
were in place on Scud missiles by 25 October, at which time the tide
of war had turned in favour of Israel. To dissuade the Egyptians
using the weapons, Nixon placed US forces on a high alert.
This information was published long before Vanunu ever stated anything
in public. His crime seems to have been that he spilt the beans to a
UK newspaper. Just like the US, Israel has one or more equivalents of
the "Skunk Works" - the treatment of Vanunu might have been aimed at
discouraging anybody from talking about projects that were totally
unknown to foreign intelligence agencies.
An example of this is reactive armour developed in Israel against HEAT
anti-tank weapons and later copied by the Russians. It's now out of
favour as it is hazardous to accompanying infantry and further
developments in Chobham type multi layered armour have made it
obsolete.
> >I took your implication to
> >be that Israel would be (is?) as reckless with them as Iraq, Syria,
> >Libya, PLO etc would be.
>
> I think whatever country feels the most desperate will use them
first. However,
> neither of those Arab countries have such weapons, whereas Israel
does.
It is not known if the Russians ever recovered the warheads noted
above.
It's a dirty game
Dermod Ryder
> > Most of the enemy mass casualties came early
> >in the battle, when the possibility of American mass casualties had
> >yet to be prevented.
>
> Yes, I know. We killed the cannon fodder Saddam sent to the front
lines who
> hardly had any weapons. But we stopped just short of attacking the
crack
> Takriti troops which actually keep him in power. We not only weren't
willing to
> eliminate Saddam ourselves at the time, we fixed things so the Iraqi
people
> couldn't eliminate him themselves.
Most of the front line "cannon fodder" surrendered without a fight.
That was why the Marine Divisions, on the right, advanced far in
excess of expectations into Kuwait and VII Corps, the heavy armoured
divisions on the left, had to jump off 12 hours early to race to
engage with the Republican Guard. They succeeded in destroying at
least two of the RG divisions and 24th Mechanised Infantry mauled
another brigade after the ceasefire.
george.fleming2
Sure you know everyone very well, but how many know who you? Anyone could
fill out this information on Beliefnet it gives nothing away.
So when are you going to tell all of the Baha'is and Ex-baha'is you have
been conning who you really are Mr Scarlet Pimpernel?.................GF
Paul Hammond member since 4/4/01
Basics:
Baha'i
Books
History & Scholarship
Movies
News & Current Events
Politics
Relationships
Science
Travel
Art
Philosophy
I Am:
Liberal
Moderate
Agnostic
Skeptical
Scientific
Birth Announcements None
Memorials None
Wedding Albums None
Religious Events None
Other Celebrations None
george.fleming2
kas...@tpg.com.au wrote on 23/2/03 1:32 am:
> "george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA7D7F4C.12C6A%george....@ntlworld.com>...
>
> Dear Paul
>
> Our inspection teams have searched the proceeding post high and low
> and can find nothing worthy of response.
>
> Under the Geneva Convention it is prohibited to engage in a battle of
> wits with unarmed opponents.
>
> Your poofy little Faggot friend.
>
> Rod.
Well said Crocadile Dundee, but the Geneva Convention dont prevent the
Scarlet Pimpernel going for walks up the The Old Man of Coniston or playing
Mornington Crescent with himself, with the blessing of devious Demetrie.
GF
Raoul
> in article 8ccded73.03022...@posting.google.com, Rod at
> kas...@tpg.com.au wrote on 23/2/03 1:32 am:
>
> > "george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BA7D7F4C.12C6A%george....@ntlworld.com>...
> >
> > Dear Paul
> >
> > Our inspection teams have searched the proceeding post high and low
> > and can find nothing worthy of response.
> >
> > Under the Geneva Convention it is prohibited to engage in a battle of
> > wits with unarmed opponents.
> >
> > Your poofy little Faggot friend.
> >
> > Rod.
>
> Well said Crocadile Dundee, but the Geneva Convention dont prevent the
> Scarlet Pimpernel going for walks up the The Old Man of Coniston or
playing
> Mornington Crescent with himself, with the blessing of devious Demetrie.
>
> GF
That's very funny.
Raoul
george.fleming2
wrote on 23/2/03 12:52 pm:
Well how's about a little giggle just for the audience, like the Scarlet
pimpernel gives us now and again..............GF
Dermod Ryder
"Raoul" <no_...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:b3ag5p$erl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
And would that be "funny ha! ha!" or "funny ridiculous?"
Dermod.
george.fleming2
Grim_Re...@btinternet.com wrote on 23/2/03 2:58 pm:
It would even be funnier Demetrie that your so called buddy has been
stringing you along for two years thinking he was a non Baha'i and all the
time he turned out to be a plant from the institutions.
Have you passed him on any information by private post?........GF
Raoul
>
> Well how's about a little giggle just for the audience, like the Scarlet
> pimpernel gives us now and again..............GF
>
Did you hear the one about the little paper bag that caught HIV because its
mother was a carrier?
Raoul
Raoul
>
> And would that be "funny ha! ha!" or "funny ridiculous?"
>
I think you can file that under "deliberately ambiguous." ;-)
Raoul
Robert Arvay
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> "george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BA7D7F4C.12C6A%george....@ntlworld.com>...
> > Robert,
> >
> > Dont listen to this little English (snip)
> George,
>
> I know Robert well enough to know that you won't get anywhere
> talking about me like that to him.
>
(snip)
>
> Paul
I feel obliged to interject, although usually I would rather avoid
involvement in purely personal disputes. But actually, while I
disagree strongly, even passionatley, with Paul and others, I prefer
to assume (unless proved otherwise) that my debate opponents are
sincere--- misguided, grievously wrong--- but sincere. And I'd rather
focus on their arguments, although often times I find those arguments
to be little more than scoring points in a debate.
This can be difficult to do, for example when I believe that their
arguments are advocacy of mass infanticide (aka abortion). But I'm
sure they look upon me as warmonger, so it must be difficult for them
to be polite to me--- to the extent that they have.
So thanks for writing, but I'd prefer a different focus.
May God bless us all!
Paul Hammond
>
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030221202253...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> > >
> > >Surely you are not equating the killing of soldiers in combat with the
> > >deliberate torture, maiming and killing of innocent civilians.
> >
> > I'm saying a dead body is a dead body.
>
> Equating a dead murderer with his dead victim?
>
So, all the Iraqi soldiers we killed were actually
murderers, and all the US soldiers that died
were actually victims?
> > I'm sure we could have one this victory
> > with much less loss of life if we cared to.
>
> If that is your opinion, then so be it. Are you aware that we could
> have, were we the evil monsters some depict us as, killed far GREATER
> numbers of Iraqis also? Most of the enemy mass casualties came early
> in the battle, when the possibility of American mass casualties had
> yet to be prevented. At that stage of the battle, the obligation of
> the generals was toward their own troops first.
> Are you aware that we could have levelled Baghdad? That we could have
> set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire-- oh, wait-- Saddam did that.
> Mustn't go there.
> But why no mention that Saddam could have easily killed far fewer
> Kuwaitis than he did? Why is the UN so silent on that matter?
>
Because Saddam must answer for his own crimes, and we are
not responsible for them. We only have control over our
actions.
> > Most of those killed were barely
> > armed Shi'ite canon fodder. And we knew that. We just killed them and stopped
> > short of the Takriti thugs. Why? Because a democratic government in Iraq would
> > have been a Shi'ite one. So we deliberately kept the man in power and we want
> > to again punish the Iraqi people for this.
>
> If America's critics were half as cynical of Saddam as they are of the
> USA, then I might begin to understand. Sure, Saddam is a maniacal
> sadistic murderer, but let's focus on America's flaws.
>
We can't do anything about Saddam's flaws. We can improve
America by getting rid of Bush - plus there are actually
lots of Americans that might listen to reason, and that
might make a difference. The Iraqi people don't get to
vote and get killed for having the wrong opinion.
> >
> > >
> > >Again, please do not say you are equating Saddam's atrocities with
> > >combat casualties.
> >
> > Just give us the statistic, Robert. How many people did Saddam kill vs. how
> > many did the US kill?
>
> How many criminals did the police kill last year in the USA? Does
> that provide an adequate measure of whether the criminals are to
> blame?
>
No - but they are the basic startingpoint facts for such
analysis.
You started this by saying "let's get this into proportion".
If you're going to be getting things into proportion, we can
start with a body count for both sides, not with you saying
"but those were Iraqi soldiers, so we can't count those
deaths as much as American deaths".
> Instead, you seem to keep equating Al Capone with Murphy the
> pickpocket, both of them evil men indeed, but on which should we focus
> first?
>
That is a good question. Saddam is easily not the most dangerous
man in the world currently. I think bin Laden is more dangerous,
for one - he already killed a couple thousand Americans.
>
> My point was that, whichever way we might miscalculate, the
> consequences could be INcalculable. We are walking a tightrope
> between reckless use of force on the one hand, and allowing ourselves
> to be nuked on the other hand. The best balance, in my mind, would be
> for the world to present a unified front against the likes of Saddam,
> to make him believe without doubt that he must disarm or BE disarmed
> by all necessary means. Faced with that choice, Saddam would be, as
> you say, not stupid.
That is not an option, because not everyone thinks with Bush's
brain.
> >
> > That's exactly the problem I referred to earlier. You do not arrest and jail
> > people in the basis of their character but because they have committed a crime.
> > We either live by the rule of law or we are back to medieval barbarism.
>
> And this applies to the current situation, how? This is not a case of
> law enforcement. This is a matter of extreme danger to civilization.
> If you wish to use the crime analogy, it is a crime in progress, not
> the jury deliberations. Decisive action must be taken, and soon.
> Without divine guidance, the decision is sure to be the wrong one, and
> a disastrous one.
Which crime is Saddam currently committing that damages US
interests so much that we must invade his country to
topple him?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article 8ccded73.03022...@posting.google.com, Rod at
> kas...@tpg.com.au wrote on 23/2/03 1:32 am:
>
> > "george.fleming2" <george....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BA7D7F4C.12C6A%george....@ntlworld.com>...
> >
> > Dear Paul
> >
> > Our inspection teams have searched the proceeding post high and low
> > and can find nothing worthy of response.
> >
> > Under the Geneva Convention it is prohibited to engage in a battle of
> > wits with unarmed opponents.
> >
> > Your poofy little Faggot friend.
> >
> > Rod.
>
> Well said Crocadile Dundee, but the Geneva Convention dont prevent the
> Scarlet Pimpernel going for walks up the The Old Man of Coniston or playing
> Mornington Crescent with himself, with the blessing of devious Demetrie.
>
> GF
>
George,
Don't call me "Scarlet Pimpernel". That is the real alias, of
a real other person, who had a real fight with me in another
place. Ask Karen about it.
Coincidentally, he made sock puppets too, only he was
about 600 times better at it than you because 1) he disguised
his voice. 2) He didn't make posts under one alias, and sign
them off under the other, as you did with both repliplur (IIRC)
and Errol within days of creating them.
Just FYI, Raoul is not me. Try checking the headers, you
might be able to at least establish that basic fact.
I don't make sock-puppets myself - never really had the
inclination to do it - neither have I ever been bothered
about disguising my real identity.
Paul
Paul Hammond
She didn't come from Safeway then?
Paul
george.fleming2
> I don't make sock-puppets myself - never really had the
> inclination to do it - neither have I ever been bothered
> about disguising my real identity.
You are a liar. Paul Hammond is not your real name.....GF
george.fleming2
> Coincidentally, he made sock puppets too, only he was
> about 600 times better at it than you because 1) he disguised
> his voice. 2) He didn't make posts under one alias, and sign
> them off under the other, as you did with both repliplur (IIRC)
> and Errol within days of creating them.
George Fleming is not my real name, its a name I adopted 30 years ago for to
protect my anonymity, when I joined Alcoholics Anonymous. Likewise I oslo
used it to join the Baha'i Faith and I use it for my artist and author's
name. My real name is only known by members of my family and some very close
friends. So none of you people on TRB know my real name, and never will.
GF
george.fleming2
> I don't make sock-puppets myself - never really had the
> inclination to do it - neither have I ever been bothered
> about disguising my real identity.
Why then did you become ever so friendly with Karen at the same time as
Susan Maneck?...............................Gf
george.fleming2
> I don't make sock-puppets myself - never really had the
> inclination to do it - neither have I ever been bothered
> about disguising my real identity.
No because you already disguised your identity and protected your true
anonymity when you first came to the Internet just like I did.
Only your reason was different than mine. I have always been known as George
Fleming in AA, Baha'i, and Art circles. But I use my true name amongst
family and close friends.
So are you like me, your Internet name is not your true name is it?...GF
Steve Marshall
http://newdeal.feri.org/asn/asn09.htm
No, that's not it. Ah yes, here's the one...
http://bahai-library.org/bafa/fleming.htm
That's odd. The address at the bottom of the web page - 90 Blacks
Road, Opoho, Dunedin - is my address. What's a 'real man' like George
doing in my poofy arts magazine?
ka iite
Steve
Paul Hammond
And this relates to your inepteness at working sock-puppets
how exactly?
Paul Hammond
Bugger off George, or whoever the fuck you are.
Just because you do something, doesn't mean everyone does.
Paul Hammond is indeed my real name - but I don't care if
you don't believe that.
I don't make sock puppets even if my real name were Joe
Bloggs, because "Paul Hammond" is the only internet identity
I post under.
Paul
george.fleming2
asm...@es.co.nz wrote on 24/2/03 11:37 am:
So it's your poofy art magazine, that my artwork from the Belfast Gasworks
has ended up in. It was your friend in the netherlands who wrote and asked
for that article. If you dont like my art work in your poofy magazine just
delete. I couldn't give a feck anymore as I am not a Bahai.
George Fleming is my artist's/author's name, and used to be my Baha'i name.
I took this name on 30 years ago to protect my real name when I joined AA.
But it's not my real name, and you will never find that out. Now a way
inside and get the house cleaned before Alison comes home and beats you up
with her handbag.
By the way hanbag Steve' do you know who give this outfit the permission to
use one of my paintings in this website without my permission?....GF
Steve Marshall
>So it's your poofy art magazine, that my artwork from the Belfast Gasworks
>has ended up in. It was your friend in the netherlands who wrote and asked
>for that article. If you dont like my art work in your poofy magazine just
>delete. I couldn't give a feck anymore as I am not a Bahai.
I don't have anything to do with Arts Dialogue any more. I left in
2002
>George Fleming is my artist's/author's name, and used to be my Baha'i name.
>I took this name on 30 years ago to protect my real name when I joined AA.
>But it's not my real name, and you will never find that out. Now a way
>inside and get the house cleaned before Alison comes home and beats you up
>with her handbag.
Cool fantasy, George. I'm having fun with it.
>By the way hanbag Steve' do you know who give this outfit the permission to
>use one of my paintings in this website without my permission?....GF
>
>http://www.thespiritualsanctuary.org/Bahai/Bahai.html
No idea. If you can be bothered, why don't you try to contact the
site-owners?
ka kite
Steve
Dermod Ryder
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9vvj5vgb1t2unjdhu...@4ax.com...
Hmmmm! Blacks Road?
Cal will be pleased!
Dermod.
Dermod Ryder
> George Fleming is my artist's/author's name, and used to be my
Baha'i name.
> I took this name on 30 years ago to protect my real name when I
joined AA.
> But it's not my real name, and you will never find that out. Now a
way
> inside and get the house cleaned before Alison comes home and beats
you up
> with her handbag.
Lucky Steve ... gets a regular handbagging!!!!
As to George Fleming's real name .... I can now reveal that his real
name is .... Francis Dingle! I have kept this secret a secret for too
long now! But now is the time for its revelation and .... revelation
is something that I'm definitely in the mood for tonight!
Dermod Ryder
> So it's your poofy art magazine, that my artwork from the Belfast
Gasworks
> has ended up in.
Is this the self portrait that you did?
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030222210948...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
> > Most of the enemy mass casualties came early
> >in the battle, when the possibility of American mass casualties had
> >yet to be prevented.
>
> Yes, I know. We killed the cannon fodder Saddam sent to the front lines who
> hardly had any weapons.
> But we stopped just short of attacking the crack
> Takriti troops which actually keep him in power. We not only weren't willing to
> eliminate Saddam ourselves at the time, we fixed things so the Iraqi people
> couldn't eliminate him themselves.
Well, on the one hand you decry the present US policy of acting
outside UN sanction. But in 1991, we restricted ourselves to the UN
mandate, which was a mistake--- it is why Saddam continues his
atrocities. It was tragic that so many Iraqi soldiers were killed---
sent under-armed and under-trained, by Saddam who positioned his
loyalist soldiers to kill any who retreated. Yet, somehow, you seem
to frame this as if the US were at fault for killing enemy soldiers at
a time of the battle when we could not simply show up with doughnuts
and coffee and inquire whether anyone wished to surrender. At the
first opportunity, we did accept surrenders of tens of thousands.
>
> >But why no mention that Saddam could have easily killed far fewer
> >Kuwaitis than he did?
>
> Again, compare the figures. How many Kuwaitis did he kill versus how many
> Iraqis did we kill?
The point I've tried to make is that this is not a numbers game. It's
not HOW MANY one has killed, it's the context. Killing in
self-defense, or defense of an innocent victim, is not to be compared
with murder.
>
> > But it is no secret at
> >all that Saddam spent his money on palaces, not on his population.
>
> >How many people did Saddam kill vs. how
> >> many did the US kill?
> >
> >How many criminals did the police kill last year in the USA?
>
> Those Shi'ites we killed weren't criminals. In fact, they don't like Sadam
> anymore than you do.
Again, the point is that it's not a numbers game. The cops aren't bad
just because they kill and avoid getting killed. The US is not bad
just because in battle we prevail. You're measuring weight in meters
instead of in grams. The measure you're using is not appropriate to
the issue.
>
> >Susan--- whether or not you intend it, you're making your case on the
> >supposition that we can trust Saddam--- either because he cannot kill
> >us (yet) or would not do so if he could (comforting thought).
>
> On the contrary. My case rest on the presupposition that civilized people don't
> kill others because of what they imagine they might do.
Agreed. But this case is not that simple. Does the US administration
have information which has been assessed to alarm them of a serious
threat from Iraq? Has that assessment been competently made? I don't
know. Nor do you. We can only make our own decisions as to whom we
have confidence in. Frankly, I have no confidence in the French,
Germans, Russians or Chinese. I do have confidence (presently) in the
US administration.
If you feel otherwise, I respect that. This forum gives us an
opportunity to explore our positions and the reasons for them.
>
> >But the
> >real case to be made is that Iraq is a conquered nation, obliged by UN
> >resolutions (to which Iraq agreed) to disarm, and to pro-actively
> >demonstrate its disarmament.
>
> And it is up to the UN, not the US to enforce those resolutions. To do so
> without their sanctions makes us vigilantes at best.
Unless one takes seriously our national sovereignty, and that our
legitimate national interest might be in conflict with the agendas of
other nations. We should seek to operate in the UN, but if the UN is
determined to pass resolution after resolution and never enforce them,
then the US must act in its own interest.
>
> >My point was that, whichever way we might miscalculate, the
> >consequences could be INcalculable.
>
> Then why don't we just skip the calculations and just do what is right?
My opinion is that that is indeed what the US is doing, and certainly
PM Tony Blair seems to be taking it on the chin rather than taking the
easy way out.
>
> > We are walking a tightrope
> >between reckless use of force on the one hand, and allowing ourselves
> >to be nuked on the other hand.
>
> Sorry, Saddam doesn't have nukes. And we don't have to trust him to determine
> that. There is no way he had access to the resources to develope one.
Saddam has on more than one occasion shown that his nuclear program
was far more advanced than supposed. Defectors from within Iraq have
astonished the world with their revelations of Saddam's determination
and resourcefulness in this regard.
>
> >Given that, each of us must decide whom we can trust. For some, their
> >trust is placed in the UN. For others, it's in Bush and Blair. For
> >yet others, it's in Saddam and Kim.
> >For me, it's in Jesus.
>
> And Jesus says break all international laws to fight an aggressive war against
> someone who hasn't attacked us? I must have missed that in the Gospels
> somewhere. Maybe I just got too bogged down with that 'love your enemy' and
> 'turn-the-other-cheek' business.
This sounds uncharacteristically sarcastic, coming from you.
> >
> >And this applies to the current situation, how? This is not a case of
> >law enforcement. This is a matter of extreme danger to civilization.
>
> Nonsense. Saddam is a two-bit hood, and one without any real muscle at that. He
> is a danger to his own people, but not to us. Unless, his back is against the
> wall. Then we can expect our troops to suffer the effects of the chemical
> weapons we sold him.
Or, until he gets our back against the wall.
>
> He is certainly no threat to civilization!
>
> >Without divine guidance, the decision is sure to be the wrong one, and
> >a disastrous one.
>
> I know what divine guidance our scriptures give? What do yours say?
>
National leaders have an obligation to secure the safety and wellbeing
of their nations through lawful means. That overly broad mandate
allows lots of room for disagreement on a wide range of specifics.
Turning the other cheek is a divine deed when the cheek being smitten
is one's own. But when one turns away from evil and does nothing,
that is no virtue. Pacifism is not simply a matter of walking away
from a fight. It requires that one intervene between injustice and
its victims. For some, that may mean becoming a human shield
(although how many of them have interposed themselves between the
torturor an and Iraqi child?). For others, it is to be a warrior.
>
> >> Those who imagine they are above the law invariably commit evil.
> >>
> >All the more reason to bring Saddam to heel. Or GWB. Depending on
> >your point of view.
>
> International law is determined by the World Court and the United Nations.
> Anyone who acts apart from their authorization is a vigilante and therefore a
> criminal.
That would be true if the UN were a world government with authority
superseding national sovereignty. It is not. It is a forum, and
recently, an irresolute one at that.
>
May the peace of Jesus Christ descend upon this fallen world, and
rescue us from ourselves!
george.fleming2
asm...@es.co.nz wrote on 24/2/03 8:23 pm:
> Hi George,
>
>> So it's your poofy art magazine, that my artwork from the Belfast Gasworks
>> has ended up in. It was your friend in the netherlands who wrote and asked
>> for that article. If you dont like my art work in your poofy magazine just
>> delete. I couldn't give a feck anymore as I am not a Bahai.
>
> I don't have anything to do with Arts Dialogue any more. I left in
> 2002
Hi Steve
Well I think you and Alison did a good and probably thankless job even if
you thought it a poofy art mag.
>
>> George Fleming is my artist's/author's name, and used to be my Baha'i name.
>> I took this name on 30 years ago to protect my real name when I joined AA.
>> But it's not my real name, and you will never find that out. Now a way
>> inside and get the house cleaned before Alison comes home and beats you up
>> with her handbag.
>
> Cool fantasy, George. I'm having fun with it.
It is common for Artists and authors to use a pseudonym rather than their
own name. Denis MacEoin has a pseudonym, only he joined the Baha'i Faith as
a student using his real name. I had a pseudonym prior to becoming a Bahai.
GF
Karen Bacquet
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." --
Baha'u'llah
>
> George,
>
> Don't call me "Scarlet Pimpernel". That is the real alias, of
> a real other person, who had a real fight with me in another
> place. Ask Karen about it.
Scarlet Pimpernel is one of Cristian's aliases, of which he has many. (Pwll
doesn't seem to do that.) He once created a whole persona "Victor" and had
arguments with himself. He tried to get on Baha'i lists for a while, under
the handle "Baha'i Spy". His "Scarlet Pimpernel" handle, though, wasn't an
alter-ego; he now uses "Prometheus", but he signs as Cristian.
Oh, and he's definitely *not* Paul -- the two dislike each other intensely.
And Cristian hates me, while Paul has been my defender.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
Maybe Fleming is someone else's name. When Dermod's solicitor sends George's letters, they get to George only due to the
coincidence that Dermod's solicitor is George's cousin, and knows that George Fleming is really James Joyce, or Margaret
Thatcher, or ...
Maybe I'll forget about the hue and cry that George raised about me using his name on TRB. Imagine my surprise to discover
that it was not the name of "George Fleming" that he was concerned about. Now I'm wondering - was it me mentioning the
name of Susan Maneck that had him so riled? Could his name be Robin Peters?
george.fleming2
Elvis_...@ameritel.net wrote on 25/2/03 3:10 am:
Did you not read the post I sent to Steve? I will inclose it again.
It is common for Artists and authors to use a pseudonym rather than their
own name. Denis MacEoin has a pseudonym, only he joined the Baha'i Faith as
a student using his real name. I had a pseudonym prior to becoming a Bahai.
My mail arrives for both names. I also have two (Euro) bank accounts in
Dundalk, and two (Sterling) in Belfast with separate names. The pseudonym
George Fleming is my business account. My private account is in my real name
which is on my birth certificate....................GF
Steve Marshall
Letter to the Observer
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've
been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors
down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both
give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something
nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but
he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr
Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources
- that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the
street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off
one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't
I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will
say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my
neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling
about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the
while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things
to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But
until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George
W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of
patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's
face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the
only way to bring about international peace and security. The one
certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting
the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never
threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife
and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll
leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally
unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq
is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass
destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as
much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr
Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the
world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when
you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all
terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a
terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want
to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide
bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a
future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective
until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate
Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe
thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the
same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the
iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't
like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will
be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might
be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as
the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give
the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic
outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't
hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the
entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W.
Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my
policy will destroy only one street.
Robert Arvay
Excellent parody! However, the assumptions upon which it is based
lead to flawed analogies.
Steve Marshall <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<7c5m5vkgd594t5pkd...@4ax.com>...
> A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (ex Monty Python).
>
> Letter to the Observer
> Sunday January 26, 2003
> The Observer
>
> I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
> he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've
> been really pxxxed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors
> down the street.
First flaw. Personal impatience is not GWB's claim as a basis for
war. Rather, the context here is that after months of Saddam claiming
to have no WMD--- and then authorizing their use--- and then saying
that he's "seriously considering" destroying those which turned up---
that the time for action has come. That's not at all the same as your
analogy of being pxxed off.
>
> Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both
> give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something
> nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
But the US is not in this position. Saddam has a long history of WMD
programs, and of lying about them. His penchant for deadly violence
on a massive scale is well known.
>
> I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but
> he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
Again. The UN has found scant few WMD EXCEPT when tipped off by
defectors, whose revelations have indeed proved that Saddam
tenaciously continues to manufacture or otherwise obtain proscribed
weapons.
> As for Mr
> Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources
> - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer.
The proof of Saddam's butchery is denied only by his most loyal
followers.
> I have leafleted the
> street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off
> one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't
> I go to the police?
Whenever one reveals his intelligence data, he invariably tips his
hand as to how he came by that data. Leaks are plugged (pun
intended), often fatally.
One must be exceedingly judicious. No analogy here with reporting to
police.
> But that's simply ridiculous. The police will
> say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my
> neighbours.
What is this confusion between acts of war and and acts of crime? I
suppose to some, they are all the same, but most people can
differentiate. Have you seen the parodies of Pearl Harbor? (Lawyer
for the Japanese: "As soon as those Japanese planes entered American
airspace, their pilots became entitled to the full protections of the
US Constitution, including the presumption of innocence, due process,
and the right to trial by a jury of their PEERS." Unfortunately, some
people do not recognize that that is a parody!)
> They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling
> about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the
> while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things
> to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
>
It is Saddam and his facilitators in the UN who have indeed clogged up
the works with procedural quibbles.
(snip)
> [GWB's plan is] The one
> certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting
> the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never
> threatened us.
Immediately upon 9/11/2001, (or 11/9/2001 in Europe) the blame America
apologists came out with their, "What did we do to provoke their
anger?" agonizing. Well, Osama has explained it perfectly well. We
heathens contaminated his beloved land with our mere presence. And
for that, thousands must die. How does one hold hope of reasoning
with the Wahhabi Islamists who think that way?
>
> That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife
> and children.
The US policy of minimizing civilian casualties to the bare minimum is
in stark contrast with Islamist's (and Saddam's) policy of maximizing
them. The scud attacks against Israel (a noncombatant nation in the
Gulf War) were one example of that.
> Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll
> leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally
> unacceptable way.
Peering, is he?
>
> (snip) Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the
> world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
> It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when
> you've achieved it? (snip)
You're extrapolating beyond your knowledge of what plans have been
proposed. The long-term plan is to replace tyranny with freedom---
something which is underappreciated amid the wealth and ease of a West
which hardly remembers WW2.
>
> My wife says I might
> be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as
> the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Poor wife!
>
> Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough
> reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give
> the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
> and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic
> outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't
> hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the
> entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W.
> Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my
> policy will destroy only one street.
But your (that is, the UN's) steadfast refusal to enforce 1441 will be
the undoing of the world.
May God protect us from that!
Steve Marshall
>with the Wahhabi Islamists who think that way?
Iraq is neither Wahhabi or any friend of Osama.
>You're extrapolating beyond your knowledge of what plans have been
>proposed. The long-term plan is to replace tyranny with freedom---
>something which is underappreciated amid the wealth and ease of a West
>which hardly remembers WW2.
Yes, the US was so much *more* involved in that war than Europe, I
forgot.
ka kite
Steve
Paul Hammond
>
> Excellent parody! However, the assumptions upon which it is based
> lead to flawed analogies.
>
> Steve Marshall <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<7c5m5vkgd594t5pkd...@4ax.com>...
> > A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (ex Monty Python).
> >
> > Letter to the Observer
> > Sunday January 26, 2003
> > The Observer
> >
> > I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
> > he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've
> > been really pxxxed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors
> > down the street.
>
> First flaw. Personal impatience is not GWB's claim as a basis for
> war. Rather, the context here is that after months of Saddam claiming
> to have no WMD--- and then authorizing their use--- and then saying
> that he's "seriously considering" destroying those which turned up---
> that the time for action has come. That's not at all the same as your
> analogy of being pxxed off.
> >
> > Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both
> > give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something
> > nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
>
> But the US is not in this position. Saddam has a long history of WMD
> programs, and of lying about them. His penchant for deadly violence
> on a massive scale is well known.
But, oddly enough, no evidence can be found - just this
assertion that his criminality is "well known". You can't
convict someone in a court of law based on the fact that
they are "well-known" to be a nasty piece of work.
<snip>
>
> > As for Mr
> > Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources
> > - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer.
>
> The proof of Saddam's butchery is denied only by his most loyal
> followers.
>
Yeah, though mostly all this butchery happened over a decade
ago, before the first Gulf War. Since 1990, Saddam's writ
has not run in the Kurdish areas where the rebels are, and John
Major's no-fly zones have protected these areas for rebel
Iraqis.
Paul
Cal E. Rollins
There's talk this morning on CNN about the US serving as the backbone of
reconstruction of Iraq after the war with Australia as the main peace
keeper and guardian of the developing democratic process. Have you
heard anything about this? --Cal
Susan Maneck
>outside UN sanction. But in 1991, we restricted ourselves to the UN
>mandate,
The UN didn't tell us we couldn't go all the way to Baghdad during that war. It
was President Bush who made the decision to turn back the troops, and he did it
all on his own.
>Does the US administration
>have information which has been assessed to alarm them of a serious
>threat from Iraq? Has that assessment been competently made? I don't
>know. Nor do you.
We know they have produced no hard evidence of this and in the absence of it
there are no grounds for going to war.
>We can only make our own decisions as to whom we
>have confidence in.
Au contraire. We can make decisions on the basis of the weight of the evidence
presented.
> I do have confidence (presently) in the
>US administration.
Sorry. I know more about the Middle East that does the present US
administration.
>
>Saddam has on more than one occasion shown that his nuclear program
>was far more advanced than supposed.
Yeah, twenty years ago during the Iran-Iraq War before the Israelis wiped it
out.
>Maybe I just got too bogged down with that 'love your enemy' and
>> 'turn-the-other-cheek' business.
>
>This sounds uncharacteristically sarcastic, coming from you.
Sorry, but I still love Jesus too much to have much patience with anyone
war-mongering in His Name.
>Unless, his back is against the
>> wall. Then we can expect our troops to suffer the effects of the chemical
>> weapons we sold him.
>
>Or, until he gets our back against the wall.
He has no way of putting our back against the wall. He is completely contained.
>
>National leaders have an obligation to secure the safety and wellbeing
>of their nations through lawful means.
Without UN sanction this is an illegal and aggressive war.
Susan Maneck
>> The proof of Saddam's butchery is denied only by his most loyal
>> followers.
>>
>
>Yeah, though mostly all this butchery happened over a decade
>ago, before the first Gulf War.
Dear Paul,
No, Saddam has committed atrocities against the Shi'ites. He didn't have to
bomb them from above.
warmest, Susan
Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030228023033...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >Does the US administration
> >have information which has been assessed to alarm them of a serious
> >threat from Iraq? Has that assessment been competently made? I
don't
> >know. Nor do you.
>
> We know they have produced no hard evidence of this and in the
absence of it
> there are no grounds for going to war.
Non sequitur! Intelligence estimates of an actual or potential enemy
are never made available for public scrutiny. The US and UK may be
acting on the basis of such information.
<SNIP>
> > I do have confidence (presently) in the
> >US administration.
>
> Sorry. I know more about the Middle East that does the present US
> administration.
Geez! The Pope and Grumpies have nothing on this Ass Professor from a
hick college in the US. She knows more than the entire CIA, NSA, MI6
and other information gathering agencies and bodies. Perhaps she
could inform General Franks of Centcom exactly how many tanks are
deployed by the Medina division of the Republican Guard.
> >Saddam has on more than one occasion shown that his nuclear program
> >was far more advanced than supposed.
>
> Yeah, twenty years ago during the Iran-Iraq War before the Israelis
wiped it
> out.
Nope! During the UN inspections in the nineties.
<SNIP>
> >Or, until he gets our back against the wall.
>
> He has no way of putting our back against the wall. He is completely
contained.
They thought the same about Japan way back in 1941. As the Ass
Professor, being an historian, could doubtless tell us, the Japanese
came darn close to turning the Pacific into a Japanese lake in 1942 .
... if the SBDs had not spotted that Japanese destroyer, it might well
have happened.
Robert Arvay
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<10992-3E5...@storefull-2333.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Well, I'm quite disturbed about this talk of war with Australia. :)
I don't think we can win. If the Aussies empty their saloons, we'll
be overrun by rowdies. And if NZ chips in for them, we'll be
overwhelmed with applicants demanding welfare benefits.
No, I've heard nothing specific, just a lot of generalities.
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030228023033...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> > >Does the US administration
> > >have information which has been assessed to alarm them of a serious
> > >threat from Iraq? Has that assessment been competently made? I
> don't
> > >know. Nor do you.
> >
> > We know they have produced no hard evidence of this and in the
> absence of it
> > there are no grounds for going to war.
>
> Non sequitur! Intelligence estimates of an actual or potential enemy
> are never made available for public scrutiny. The US and UK may be
> acting on the basis of such information.
Just a few months ago President Bush was telling folks at the UN that
Iraq's order of 81 mm aluminum tubes was proof positive that they were
making nuclear weapons. The actual (i.e. non-politicized) intelligence
estimates were that these tubes were for making common 81 mm mortar
rounds. So, I agree with you that the actual intelligence assesments are
seldom trucked out for public display, and I agree with Susan that the US
President does not have hard evidence that justifies the US going to war.
As I was telling a guy in the grocery store the other day, "yes, Saddam is
a nasty thug, and we live in a large world with several nasty thugs, most
who are threats to their neighbors, like Saddam. When I was on active
duty, I would risk my life consistent with the oath I took to defend my
country from its enemies. We don't track down every killer with the same
dedication as we seem to have for Saddam Hewseyn. Furthermore, it seems
to me that our economy is in a recession, and the *&^@er who claims
responsibility for the WTC and Pentagon attacks is still at large. I
would rather see the full weight of our armed forces bear down on someone
who actually has attacked America, rather than someone who is thinking
about making mortar rounds after our president called him part of an "Axis
of evil"."
That is how I would lay out the priorities for our court-appointed
President: the economy, and al Qaida. So long as we've got weeds in our
flower beds, we don't need to clean up the rest of the neighborhood.
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
george.fleming2
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 28/2/03 8:38 pm:
> So long as we've got weeds in our flower beds, we don't need to clean up the
> rest of the neighborhood.
I might rewrite that to go like this " So long as i got weeds in my own
Baha'i life (flower bed) I dont need to clean up the rest of the Baha'i
neighborhood by reporting on my fellow Baha'i to the NSA when their garden
needs weeded.
Signed.......Pat Kohli
Cal E. Rollins
forbidden by Divine Command!
I'm waiting for Saddam Hussein to accept exile to Paris and to take his
100 billion dollars with him. I was hoping he'd build one of his ugly
palaces right smack-dab on the Champs Elysees. Now I hope he rebuilds
all 26 of them there and give the French something to eat crow about
instead of all that wonderfully rich cooking. --Cal
Starr*
>
> crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<10992-3E5...@storefull-2333.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > Steve, Nima, Star,
> >
> > There's talk this morning on CNN about the US serving as the backbone of
> > reconstruction of Iraq
>
> > after the war with Australia
>
> > as the main peace
> > keeper and guardian of the developing democratic process. Have you
> > heard anything about this? --Cal
>
> Well, I'm quite disturbed about this talk of war with Australia. :)
> I don't think we can win. If the Aussies empty their saloons, we'll
> be overrun by rowdies.
Don't worry mate we Ozzies know how to make sure everything is
'cricket' and know how to french fry the chips. Starr*
Steve Marshall
>there's no real point doing the patient line-by-line rebuttal:
>Nobody's interested in French oil contracts or German arms sales or
And nor are you interested that New Zealand, which has no arms sales
to Iraq, nor any oil interests there (apart from the occasional sales
of butter), lines up with France and Germany on the Iraq issue.
Interviewer:
In conclusion, here's German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: "We can
disarm Iraq without war, and i see that as my international duty."
Also, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says, "There is an
alternative to war: disarming Iraq via the inspections process."
That's a recognition by him that resolution 1441 is double-hinged:
first, compliance and then, only if proven absolutely necessary after
sufficient time, enforcement. Those two comments seem to sum up New
Zealand's position on this crisis.
Helen Clarke [Prime Minister of New Zealand]: Yes, I absolutely agree
with both of them.
The New Zealand Listener, March 1 2003 p. 21.
Wake up and find that the world hates your leader. Don't be fooled
that some nations are sucking up to him because he heads such a
materially powerful country. They also secretly hate him, and for good
reason. He is willing to break international law to get his own way
and is trying to bully the UN into ignoring article 51 of its own
charter by allowing war as a pre-emptive strike, not as response in
self-defence.
Have a nice war and don't forget to enforce those UN resolutions
against Israel while you're in the neighbourhood.
ka kite
Steve
Sekhmet
>And nor are you interested that New Zealand, which has no arms sales
>to Iraq, nor any oil interests there (apart from the occasional sales
>of butter), lines up with France and Germany on the Iraq issue.
Really?
Good on ya, mates! ;-)
--Sekhmet
Dermod Ryder
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3E5FC8B6...@ameritel.net...
> Just a few months ago President Bush was telling folks at the UN
that
> Iraq's order of 81 mm aluminum tubes was proof positive that they
were
> making nuclear weapons. The actual (i.e. non-politicized)
intelligence
> estimates were that these tubes were for making common 81 mm mortar
> rounds.
Have you ever heard of any round, artillery or mortar, which was
manufactured from aluminium? Now I recollect reading somewhere that
during the Gulf War US troops found chemical munitions packed inside
aluminium casings - the casings being there as a container for the
rounds. With chemical weapons extra precautions are required to
protect one's own troops from leaking rounds, even though many of them
are binary and do not go critical until detonated on target. I
understand that the vast majority of mortar rounds are made from
steel - the rounds are cast from molten steel and then machined to
size before being filled with explosive and propellant. Aluminium has
a lower melting point than steel so it is of no use in casting. What
use therefore are 81mm aluminium tubes for mortars unless they are to
encase (for protective reasons) chemical rounds? If that is the case
then Saddam has inventories of WOMD contrary to International law.
> So, I agree with you that the actual intelligence assesments are
> seldom trucked out for public display, and I agree with Susan that
the US
> President does not have hard evidence that justifies the US going to
war.
There were many rumours here in years past that Libya was backing the
IRA. Of course everybody in the know decried such false and
misleading information as there was no evidence until a ship carrying
arms from Libya for the IRA was intercepted.
> As I was telling a guy in the grocery store the other day, "yes,
Saddam is
> a nasty thug, and we live in a large world with several nasty thugs,
most
> who are threats to their neighbors, like Saddam. When I was on
active
> duty, I would risk my life consistent with the oath I took to defend
my
> country from its enemies. We don't track down every killer with the
same
> dedication as we seem to have for Saddam Hewseyn. Furthermore, it
seems
> to me that our economy is in a recession, and the *&^@er who claims
> responsibility for the WTC and Pentagon attacks is still at large.
I
> would rather see the full weight of our armed forces bear down on
someone
> who actually has attacked America, rather than someone who is
thinking
> about making mortar rounds after our president called him part of an
"Axis
> of evil"."
I think I detect a method in US policy at the moment - to remove those
regimes that offer aid and comfort to terrorist organisations. Step
one was the removal of the Taleban; step two is Iraq and after that
will follow the other named states. North Korea recognising it is in
the firing line is trying to divert attention from Iraq and probably
develop a few nuclear warheads for its missile systems. One of them
can hit Japan whilst another, so far untested has a theoretical
capability of hitting California.
Of the named states only North Korea has the military potential to
cause real damage - its artillery which is well dug in can take Seoul
under fire. Iran has neither the military capacity or the know-how to
seriously resist a US invasion particularly if the US forces come as
liberators. If anybody would seriously dispute that they ought to
review the military shambles that was the Iran-Iraq war in the
eighties and to reflect that Iran no longer has access to the best of
American weaponry.
> That is how I would lay out the priorities for our court-appointed
> President: the economy, and al Qaida. So long as we've got weeds
in our
> flower beds, we don't need to clean up the rest of the neighborhood.
They are linked in many ways. If the terrorist threat is not
eliminated the financial markets will continue to be jittery with an
adverse effect on the "real" economy. One has only to look at
Northern Ireland - after the ceasefires and the subsequent decline in
terrorist violence the economy vastly improved.
Dermod.
Starr*
Yeah Sekhmet.....they do indeed and have always been the number one
suppliers of lamb to those parts....even when their leaders are on the
lamb! Double standard activity played by all the players! So instead
of military arms they 'sheep' up and butter up. The truth is that the
people would healthier without the mutton.
Starr*
Susan Maneck
>people would healthier without the mutton.
But we'd be so much less happier.
Long live New Zealand!
unrepetent lover of lamb,
Susan
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3E5FC8B6...@ameritel.net...
> > Just a few months ago President Bush was telling folks at the UN
> that
> > Iraq's order of 81 mm aluminum tubes was proof positive that they
> were
> > making nuclear weapons. The actual (i.e. non-politicized)
> intelligence
> > estimates were that these tubes were for making common 81 mm mortar
> > rounds.
>
> Have you ever heard of any round, artillery or mortar, which was
> manufactured from aluminium?
My impressions of the mortar rounds I saw, dozens of years ago, was that
they were iron, or steel. Rifle bullets seem to be lead encased in
copper. Some of the fancy 25 and 30 mm guns use lead with depleted
uranium cores. Some tanks use sabots, as well as explosive rounds. The
copperhead round, and the hellfire missile, IIRC use tandem shape
charges. Let's categorize these rounds so far as 'static', such as the
copper jacketed lead, and even the sabots and depleted uranium, and the
'dynamic' to include those rounds with explosive business ends. I would
definitely use aluminum in the dynamic rounds due to some of its
characteristics which were popularized in connection with HMS Sheffield.
Th mortar would be a 'dynamic' round.
> Now I recollect reading somewhere that
> during the Gulf War US troops found chemical munitions packed inside
> aluminium casings - the casings being there as a container for the
> rounds. With chemical weapons extra precautions are required to
> protect one's own troops from leaking rounds, even though many of them
> are binary and do not go critical until detonated on target. I
I had assumed that the Iraqis did not use binary munitions, but mixed and
poured as needed. I have not followed this closely, though.
>
> understand that the vast majority of mortar rounds are made from
> steel - the rounds are cast from molten steel and then machined to
> size before being filled with explosive and propellant. Aluminium has
> a lower melting point than steel so it is of no use in casting.
I did not know that! I would have thought it would be a) easier to cast
aluminum due to its lower melting point (yes, kiddies, Aluminium does have
other challenges, but it also has advantage:) and b) softer composition,
such that it can be machined with wood working tools. The down side of
aluminim being that the ingots tend to get a scale on them, that self
sealing oxidation, and that scale does not melt with the rest of the bar,
such that molten aluminum can get touchy about whether or not it will
melt, or seem to abruptly liquify from what seemed to be solid, suddenly
spilling.
> What
> use therefore are 81mm aluminium tubes for mortars unless they are to
> encase (for protective reasons) chemical rounds?
To shape the warhead charge for that dynamic effect?
I think I am going to burst a vein here. In a nutshell, would you care to
hazard a guess as to which knucleheads bankrolled various rebel factions
in Afghanistan?
For my money, step one ought to be to stop supporting terrorists, either
terrorist organizations, or terrorist governments. I think I am a)
getting off topic, and b) repeating my own views (which I believe are well
known) on these matters.
> (snip) Iran has neither the military capacity or the know-how to
> seriously resist a US invasion particularly if the US forces come as
> liberators.
Argghhhh!!!!
> If anybody would seriously dispute that they ought to
> review the military shambles that was the Iran-Iraq war in the
> eighties and to reflect that Iran no longer has access to the best of
> American weaponry.
>
I should hope that they don't need the best of American weaponry to defend
their homeland from the US Government.
>
> > That is how I would lay out the priorities for our court-appointed
> > President: the economy, and al Qaida. So long as we've got weeds
> in our
> > flower beds, we don't need to clean up the rest of the neighborhood.
>
> They are linked in many ways. If the terrorist threat is not
> eliminated the financial markets will continue to be jittery with an
> adverse effect on the "real" economy. One has only to look at
> Northern Ireland - after the ceasefires and the subsequent decline in
> terrorist violence the economy vastly improved.
>
Best wishes!
Dermod Ryder
> My impressions of the mortar rounds I saw, dozens of years ago, was
that
> they were iron, or steel. Rifle bullets seem to be lead encased in
> copper. Some of the fancy 25 and 30 mm guns use lead with depleted
> uranium cores. Some tanks use sabots, as well as explosive rounds.
The
> copperhead round, and the hellfire missile, IIRC use tandem shape
> charges. Let's categorize these rounds so far as 'static', such as
the
> copper jacketed lead, and even the sabots and depleted uranium, and
the
> 'dynamic' to include those rounds with explosive business ends. I
would
> definitely use aluminum in the dynamic rounds due to some of its
> characteristics which were popularized in connection with HMS
Sheffield.
> Th mortar would be a 'dynamic' round.
The mortar is an "area" weapon. Its lethality is based on blast and
shrapnel - the casings are often scored to predetermine the size of
the shrapnel. It is not a precise weapon - it is not suited being
fired on a ballistic trajectory for precise aiming. The warhead is
also too small to be of any use against a hardened target.
My understanding is that copper is used to line the inverted cone of a
shaped charge warhead such as a HEAT round. When the round impacts on
the armour of a tank for example and explodes the copper aids the
concentration of the resultant flame which burns through the armour.
The "Sheffield" effect is the high flammability of aluminium ehich
would assist the dissipation of the explosive if used in a shaped
charge warhead.
Sabot rounds are penetrators - they are made of ultra hard metal such
as Depleted Uranium which, in turn is also used to enhance tank
armour.
> I had assumed that the Iraqis did not use binary munitions, but
mixed and
> poured as needed. I have not followed this closely, though.
Binary rounds are usually used in large calibre shells. The mortar
round is too small. My understanding is that gass-filled mortar
shells are filled at the factory and encased in aluminium as a
safeguard against leakage.
> > understand that the vast majority of mortar rounds are made from
> > steel - the rounds are cast from molten steel and then machined to
> > size before being filled with explosive and propellant. Aluminium
has
> > a lower melting point than steel so it is of no use in casting.
>
> I did not know that! I would have thought it would be a) easier to
cast
> aluminum due to its lower melting point (yes, kiddies, Aluminium
does have
> other challenges, but it also has advantage:) and b) softer
composition,
> such that it can be machined with wood working tools.
Sorry - I rushed that a bit and didn't make meself clear. Aluminium
is lighter, softer and easier to machine but it those very qualities
that make it unsuitable for shells or munitions. It will not maintain
its shape as well as iron or steel which means it may not be an exact
fit for the weapon and could misfire as a result. The shrapnel from
an aluminium round would not be as lethal.
<SNIP>
> > What
> > use therefore are 81mm aluminium tubes for mortars unless they are
to
> > encase (for protective reasons) chemical rounds?
>
> To shape the warhead charge for that dynamic effect?
The only use of aluminium in explosives that I have seen was the
addition of aluminium powder to the HE that was used in British bombs
during WW2. Apparently it really increased the explosive effect but
these were not shaped charges.
<SNIP?
> > I think I detect a method in US policy at the moment - to remove
those
> > regimes that offer aid and comfort to terrorist organisations.
Step
> > one was the removal of the Taleban;
>
> I think I am going to burst a vein here. In a nutshell, would you
care to
> hazard a guess as to which knucleheads bankrolled various rebel
factions
> in Afghanistan?
The finances are not the big issue here. What scares the hell out of
anybody is that these guys acquire WOMD from some nutcase government.
> For my money, step one ought to be to stop supporting terrorists,
either
> terrorist organizations, or terrorist governments. I think I am a)
> getting off topic, and b) repeating my own views (which I believe
are well
> known) on these matters.
And of course the US government opposed the IRA but that did not stop
the IRA getting money and guns from the US. So let's hear the
practical measures that can be guaranteed to stop terrorists getting
money or support from friendly states. There are none! The hard fact
is that the only effective strategy to counter terrorism is to remove
the conditions in which it thrives. For the US the first priority
ought to be to impose a settlement on Israel and the Palestinians -
one that would help improve its image in the Muslim world.
<SNIP>
> > If anybody would seriously dispute that they ought to
> > review the military shambles that was the Iran-Iraq war in the
> > eighties and to reflect that Iran no longer has access to the best
of
> > American weaponry.
> >
>
> I should hope that they don't need the best of American weaponry to
defend
> their homeland from the US Government.
Who doesn't but it is not in the realms of fantasy to suggest that in
the current state of things the US could consider invading Iran or
other countries deemed inimical to its interests.
Dermod.
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> (tech stuff snipped)
> > I think I am going to burst a vein here. In a nutshell, would you
> care to
> > hazard a guess as to which knucleheads bankrolled various rebel
> factions
> > in Afghanistan?
>
> The finances are not the big issue here. What scares the hell out of
> anybody is that these guys acquire WOMD from some nutcase government.
>
I've heard where they got their anthrax from.
>
> > For my money, step one ought to be to stop supporting terrorists,
> either
> > terrorist organizations, or terrorist governments. I think I am a)
> > getting off topic, and b) repeating my own views (which I believe
> are well
> > known) on these matters.
>
> And of course the US government opposed the IRA but that did not stop
> the IRA getting money and guns from the US. So let's hear the
> practical measures that can be guaranteed to stop terrorists getting
> money or support from friendly states. There are none!
There are measures. For the US, the first thing would be to stop
underwriting havoc in Israel, in the amount of $2billion per year. I
figure that will save me about twenty bucks per annum, right there!
> The hard fact
> is that the only effective strategy to counter terrorism is to remove
> the conditions in which it thrives. For the US the first priority
> ought to be to impose a settlement on Israel and the Palestinians -
> one that would help improve its image in the Muslim world.
>
That might cost me the $2 billion per annum I was just going to cut from
foreign miliatry aid.
(snips of "Who's next?)
Dermod Ryder
> > The finances are not the big issue here. What scares the hell out
of
> > anybody is that these guys acquire WOMD from some nutcase
government.
> >
>
> I've heard where they got their anthrax from.
I actually doesn't matter where he or anybody else acquired anthrax
or, indeed, anything else - what is important is the use to which it
is or will be put. All things have both a legitimate and illegitimate
use. A gun isn't dangerous, per se, until you put it into the hands
of some lunatic who is determined on doing harm with it and has no
legitimate requirement for it.
> > > For my money, step one ought to be to stop supporting
terrorists,
> > either
> > > terrorist organizations, or terrorist governments. I think I am
a)
> > > getting off topic, and b) repeating my own views (which I
believe
> > are well
> > > known) on these matters.
> >
> > And of course the US government opposed the IRA but that did not
stop
> > the IRA getting money and guns from the US. So let's hear the
> > practical measures that can be guaranteed to stop terrorists
getting
> > money or support from friendly states. There are none!
>
> There are measures. For the US, the first thing would be to stop
> underwriting havoc in Israel, in the amount of $2billion per year.
I
> figure that will save me about twenty bucks per annum, right there!
In other words - impose a settlement in the Mid East between Israel
and the Palestinians.
> > The hard fact
> > is that the only effective strategy to counter terrorism is to
remove
> > the conditions in which it thrives. For the US the first priority
> > ought to be to impose a settlement on Israel and the
Palestinians -
> > one that would help improve its image in the Muslim world.
> >
>
> That might cost me the $2 billion per annum I was just going to cut
from
> foreign miliatry aid.
Which might be money better spent.
In the meantime, of course, and as a short term palliative, as in
Afghanistan, military operations might be necessary. In the longer
term you remove Afghanistan from the terrorist balance sheet by aiding
its recovery and fostering its development as a peaceful democratic
society.
Dermod.