OT: You do The Math
Dusty Rhodes
USELESS UN.
Republicans are now the HMFIC.
President Bush has pushed for both resolutions and has ordered troops to
staging area's.
Even Money says Saddam gives in BIG TIME. He'll be given one fuck up, and
then WE ARE GOING TO WAR!
Now for you people who think I want war, think again. I have been there and
don't ever wish to see another person put in harms way, of any nationality,
race, religion or other. But I also don't ever wish to see a small nuke, or
a bio or chem attack in anyones country. I also don't wish for a Madman to
ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
My bet is that he pushes the resolution right to it's limit, but gives in
completely.
Dusty Rhodes
Bimo
"Dusty Rhodes" wrote:
> Congress passed a resolution to approve Military force with or without the
> USELESS UN.
<snip>
Well, I think many of us feel UN is far from useless !! Nevermind !!
Abot going to war against Iraq.
I was shocked the 11.Sept, and will forever remember what I was doing that
afternoon.
The people responsible for this should ofcause pay !
But bombing and shooting people simply doesnt solve anything.
Most military experts outside USA, including the american weapons
inspectors, all agree the Iraq does NOT have nuclear capabilities. Iraq,
even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds nest
for terrorists.
Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
conventional war.
They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to fight
them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone gets
their lives destoyed by war.
Bimo
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
> "Dusty Rhodes" wrote:
>
> > Congress passed a resolution to approve Military force with or without the
> > USELESS UN.
> <snip>
>
> Well, I think many of us feel UN is far from useless !! Nevermind !!
Not everyone can be right. Dusty is.
> Abot going to war against Iraq.
> I was shocked the 11.Sept, and will forever remember what I was doing that
> afternoon. The people responsible for this should ofcause pay !
Agreed.
> But bombing and shooting people simply doesnt solve anything.
Whos suggesting that? Did we do so, in Afghanistan?
> Most military experts outside USA, including the american weapons
> inspectors, all agree the Iraq does NOT have nuclear capabilities.
Is being somewhat certain an acceptable level of certainty? Additionally, this
isnt simply about nuclear weapons. Its about a flagrant disregard for the terms
of surrender, for 11 years, and a propensity to do unpredictable, and evil
things. And a willingness to treat civilians like serfs.
I also dont agree that most analysts agree that Iraq does not have nuclear
weapons. Most analysts agree that they are not certain about this.
> Iraq, even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds
> nest
> for terrorists.
Its not that simple Lars. Iraq represents a state of governance, an
unwillingness to give the people the rights they deserve, throughout the ME.
> Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> conventional war.
Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in the
islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
Rejecting the rights of individuals.
> They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to fight
> them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone gets
> their lives destoyed by war.
Yes, to enlighten people by compelling a form of governance which respects the
rights of citizens, offeres greater opportunities, doesnt gas them, doesnt
attack its neighbors, doesnt harbor terrorist, doesnt overtly express ill will
towards the west, and, in general behaves as a civilized nation does.
We did this in Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan now have the second, and
third largest economies, respctively, in the world. And a higher standard of
living than nearly anyone else, as a result of these actions.
Iraqi people will benefit from our actions. Wait, watch, see, and learn.
DrOK
Ivan Jozic
> ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
Hmm.. This sounds kind of selfish.. I mean, it's their country and thus,
their oil. What gives any country excuse to call up rights on that oil? Not
that an average Iraqui has had a lot of benefits from it.. Only problems..
And I doubt Saddam is mad.. Far from it.. But, talks are that one of his
sons is a pretty insane figure (crashing the wedding, kidnapping the bride,
rapeing and then killing her sounds like it).. He is a source of
instability, though, but you have to admit US have been using him for some
purposes (like military presence and securing the oil, which is logical).. I
mean, Bush Senior could have easily put thim down before (ok, there were
some issues about the effect it would have on the region because Saddam's
regime was also keeping some other countries from territorial aspirations,
like Iran) but I don't see that the reasons against have changed so much in
the last 10 years.. Only the citizens there suffered from the lack of food
and medical supplies.
It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those poor
people who pay the price..
Dusty Rhodes
> Well, I think many of us feel UN is far from useless !! Nevermind !!
It proved to me that it isn't worthless today. Now it must remain not
worthless by ENFORCING this resolution. I don't have much faith though, as
they have let 16 or so other resolutions go un-enforced. Dubya has put a
stop to that now. His mandate of enforce or we will should be a message to
the world, the buck stops now.
>
> Abot going to war against Iraq.
> I was shocked the 11.Sept, and will forever remember what I was doing that
> afternoon.
> The people responsible for this should ofcause pay !
They should pay for not just Sept 11, though every war needs a focus point
and 9-11 is that, but they should pay for every single terrorist act: The
USS Cole, the Embassies in Africa, the Bali Bombing, the kidnapping and
executions in the Phillipines, just to name the most well known ones.
>
> But bombing and shooting people simply doesnt solve anything.
> Most military experts outside USA, including the american weapons
> inspectors, all agree the Iraq does NOT have nuclear capabilities. Iraq,
> even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds nest
> for terrorists.
Most military experts outside the USA is why we are up to it to the hilt
now. Dead terrorists are no longer terrorists. The point is not that Iraq
has or hasn't nuclear weapons, it is their capability and ability to create
them that must be stopped before they can use it or pass it on to someone
else to do their dirty work. Furthermore there is no one nest of terrorist.
However Iraq shelters them. Abu Nidal was one of the worst foremost
terrorists. Where did he die? Bahgdad! That give you any indication where
many have sought refuge?
>
> Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> conventional war.
> They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to
fight
> them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone
gets
> their lives destoyed by war.
And in the meantime while you TRY to educacte the masses, there are
thousands of terrorist NOW, that need to be dealt with. Their business is
terrorizing. Nothing else. They must be dealt with now. Or are you saying
we should turn a blind eye to them. Many feed off the ignorance and poverty
to latch on to a "cause" so they can justify their acts. Hamas and
Hezbollah are prime examples. They don't want peace and have openly stated
they will not abide by or be at peace with Isreal even it is is good for the
Palestinian people. If there were peace, they would be out of business. Al
Qeada (SP?) makes their cause against the "infedels" because they are not
open minded enough to accept that people should be able to live like the
choose. They want women to cover themselves and not be seen. They want
strict adherence to THEIR interrputation of Islam. They do not want people
to be free to act and speak as they wish. They consider them infidels and
twist the Koran to fit their needs, just like the white supremist do with
the bible and Christianity. These people must be dealt with now. No more
soft side, they have been given the rope to climb out of the past or to hang
themselves. Instead of an open hand, they are getting a hooded hangman.
>
> Bimo
I respect your views Bimo, as I do from all sides. But it is the touchy
feely attitude that I feel has gotten us into this mess. I and millions of
others are tired of it and it is time to act. I think those people have
spoken through the Congressional and UN Resolution, through our recent
election a few days ago, and through the actions of governments world wide.
Syria even jumped on board for crying out loud. If this madness is going to
stop, and it will never completely stop, or brought under control, then it
is time to force it to a stop instead of hoping that it will run it's
course, or just go away. It won't and the terrorists won't.
Dusty Rhodes
Bimo
> > Iraq, even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the
worlds
> > nest
> > for terrorists.
>
> Its not that simple Lars. Iraq represents a state of governance, an
> unwillingness to give the people the rights they deserve, throughout the
ME.
I agree, but that still doesnt give USA the right to go to war against
Iraq..
Why Iraq... why not Turkey... Greece... Spain.... Ireland.... they all have
large terrorist fractions ?
> > Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> > conventional war.
>
> Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in
the
> islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
> Rejecting the rights of individuals.
This is where you go wrong.
Islam is NOT the root of terrorism, and Iraq for that matter, is not the
cradle for Islam.
The middle-east, and the generations of palestinians and arabs who have seen
their children and / or parent shot in refugee camps, driven over by tanks,
shot and mutelated without any chance to fight back.... thats where the
cradle of international terrorism lies...
They are a statesless people with noone listening to them.. thats where
terrorists are born.... NOT in Iraq, even if they give housing to some of
them.
Bimo
Bimo
> I respect your views Bimo, as I do from all sides. But it is the touchy
> feely attitude that I feel has gotten us into this mess. I and millions
of
> others are tired of it and it is time to act.
<snip>
And I respect your views Dusty.
What I disagree with, is when educated men ( like PapaDoc ) starts to call
terrorists "towelheaded murderes".
I respect that you think USA has the right to go to war against Iraq, and
that a strong hand against terrorism is the only way to provail.
I simply think its wrong.
You can only kill terrorism by killing what feeds them, and what feeds them
is war, destruction, supression and not knowing.
For every 10 Iraqi men you kill, _one_ son will be back, with only one wish,
and that is to die, killing as many americans as possible.
That might be the single one man who brings the next terrorist action to
american soil.
Bimo
Bimo
<snip>
Wise words... wise words....
Bimo
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
> "Dr Oddness Killtroll" wrote...
>
> > > Iraq, even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the
> worlds
> > > nest
> > > for terrorists.
> >
> > Its not that simple Lars. Iraq represents a state of governance, an
> > unwillingness to give the people the rights they deserve, throughout the
> ME.
>
> I agree, but that still doesnt give USA the right to go to war against
> Iraq..
The UN said we have the right, today, essentially. Additionally, who says we
dont?
>
> Why Iraq... why not Turkey... Greece... Spain.... Ireland.... they all have
> large terrorist fractions ?
They dont have large terorist factions any longer, the Grey Wolves were never
that large to begin with, the basques are not a threat to us, or the world, and
neither are the IRA.
Al Qieada is a worldwide threat. The propensity for instability, in the balance
of the ME, and an unwillingness to address this, is a continuing problem. Iraq
happens to be a problem, in that they wont abide by the terms, and we are very
concerned that they will be even more willing to sharew their wepoans
technology, etc, wit our common enemies. The terroists of the ME woudl just as
soon blow you up, as me, Lars.
>
>
> > > Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> > > conventional war.
> >
> > Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in
> the
> > islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
> > Rejecting the rights of individuals.
>
> This is where you go wrong.
> Islam is NOT the root of terrorism,
Islam is the impediment to change in the ME. Not the quran, or Islam as a
religion, but Islam in practice. Islam the way the clerics sell it to the
people. Its been misused, coopted, by the folks with an evil axe to grind.
So, you're wrong. Islam is the problem, just as ferverent difference between
catholic and protestsnat are the problem in NI. No jobs because youre a
catholic, on its face, is a problem with the religion.
> and Iraq for that matter, is not the cradle for Islam.
I never said it was. I know all about Mecca, Medina, Egypt, etc. Iraq is a
potential source for sustenance for our enemies, and is a potential example for
our other ME opponents (Iran, whose people, largely love America). A defeat of
the power elite, in Iraq, followed by the creation of a democratic state (easier
said than done, but, its been done before) will serve as an example, and a
notice.
It will also remove the WMD which he does havem, and, ultimately, isnt willing
to give up.
> The middle-east, and the generations of palestinians and arabs who have seen
The problems of the Pals have much less to do with the problems in the ME, than
some would have you beleive.
> their children and / or parent shot in refugee camps, driven over by tanks,
> shot and mutelated without any chance to fight back.... thats where the
> cradle of international terrorism lies...
No, its not. But, just as an aside, do the Isrealis killed, by bombs, etc,
deserve any mention here, or are they just oppressors too.
And, if so, why did the pals leave the LARGE area of land defined as the pal
state, in '48?
I'll tell you why, they HATE the jews, and want them
>
> They are a statesless people with noone listening to them..
Why were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers from SA, Lars? Do you know? Why are they
all affluent, middle class saudis? Much like OBL?
This is much more about punching the 'jihad' ticket, and feeling powerful, than
resolving the Palestinian problem. Their is enough OIL money in the ME to solve
the problem 10 times over.
> terrorists are born.... NOT in Iraq, even if they give housing to some of
> them.
Never said that, bimo. Readf my posts again. My thoughts are clear.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
"Ivan Jozic" <ijo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqh2r9$b3j$1...@bagan.srce.hr...
> > I also don't wish for a Madman to
> > ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
>
> Hmm.. This sounds kind of selfish.. I mean, it's their country and thus,
> their oil. What gives any country excuse to call up rights on that oil?
Not
> that an average Iraqui has had a lot of benefits from it.. Only problems..
It isn't any country. No country HAS to sell their oil. But if Iraq wants
to feed it's people, create jobs, have an economy, then selling their oil is
mandatory. Saddam can control his oil all he wants, invading other
countries, threatening invasion, using WMD's against other countries, we can
agree on, are No No's. He has done all of this, plus oppressed his own
people. It is his influence over the oil supply of other countries that
willingly sell oil to the rest of the world that places him in the MUST GO
category.
>
> And I doubt Saddam is mad.. Far from it.
Bimo, using chemical agents against your own people, and in a war that had
no meaning, is indeed the mark of a madman. No sane, intelligent, or
thoughtful person would do such atrocious acts, all in the name of staying
in power and ruling with an iron fist.
He is a source of
> instability, though, but you have to admit US have been using him for some
> purposes (like military presence and securing the oil, which is logical).
> I mean, Bush Senior could have easily put thim down before (ok, there were
> some issues about the effect it would have on the region because Saddam's
> regime was also keeping some other countries from territorial aspirations,
> like Iran) but I don't see that the reasons against have changed so much
in
> the last 10 years..
You outline the reasons why Bush Senior couldn't do what he wanted to do.
The international community said and formed a coalition, to get him OUT of
Kuwait. Any further action would have met with that coalition
disingergrating and the US acting on it's own, which the world community has
decried already. So you counter your own reason of why he wasn't taken out.
The US hasn't used him at all. We have stood by for far to long, though,
while UN resolution after UN resolution has been IGNORED and NOTHING DONE.
Saddam agreed to the terms of the cease fire, mind you it was a cease fire,
not an end to the war. To this day, he has IGNORED and refused to abide by
a cease fire HE agreed to. The UN instead of taking action has allowed it
to go this far where there is no choice to make him abide by the UN mandate
then to offer him compliance or else. At some point you have to draw a line
and say ENOUGH COMPLY OR LOSE POWER. That line has been drawn. It is up to
Saddam to abide by his word, or to be treated as a liar and the threat he
is.
Only the citizens there suffered from the lack of food
> and medical supplies.
> It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those
poor
> people who pay the price..
Bimo, tell that to Saddam. He invaded Kuwiat. He gassed his own
countryman. He gassed the Iranians. He has threatened his neighbors time
and again. He has threatened the worlds resource supply. All of this
could have been avoided if he had acted responsibly and reasonably. He
chose not knowing he would still be living in his presidential palaces while
his people suffered. He has chosen to be in power, not to lead. There is a
difference and he is a prime example of that difference.
I must profess my confusion of some peoples continued opposition to all of
this. NO ONE wants war. That is why it is so hotly debated. But down on
the bottom line, when you read everything there is and have gathered all the
information needed to make a stance or decision on this, there is a glaring
entry into this diary.
SYRIA voted for the UN resolution. That statement right there should say it
all!
Thanks for the reasonable debate Bimo.
Dusty Rhodes
Dusty Rhodes
> that a strong hand against terrorism is the only way to provail.
> I simply think its wrong.
What are the other options. When thinking of this, remember, time is
Hussiens friend. The more time we take to make a decision, implement it,
and follow it thru, means another minute closer he is to having the weapons
he wants to do what he wants. Once he has nukes, it will be too late. We
will never get anyone in there. Then who knows what he will attempt with
the NUKE CARD in his hand.
>
> You can only kill terrorism by killing what feeds them, and what feeds
them
> is war, destruction, supression and not knowing.
That suppression is done by the terrorists and those who support the
terrorists. Afghanistan was the poster child for that. Iraq is a perfect
example. Hezbollah and Hamas exploitation of the Palestinian people and
there problems is a shining example.
> For every 10 Iraqi men you kill, _one_ son will be back, with only one
wish,
> and that is to die, killing as many americans as possible.
That statement flies in the face of everything that we know about the wishes
and thoughts of the Iraqi people.
>
> That might be the single one man who brings the next terrorist action to
> american soil.
And that terrorist act WILL NOT be a nuclear, chem, or bio weapon from Iraq,
IF the UN follows thru. Even if they don't, the US of A will, to ensure it.
There has to be a stand made. Now is the time. Wait any longer and he will
wave a Nuke in the face of the UN and tell them to stuff it. Then who will
he threaten? Isreal? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait again as their 19th province?
Iran, who he has already gone to war with and used Chemical Weapons?
Turkey, who is a member of NATO and leans to the west? Jordan, who is more
and more the moderate Arab state of the region?
Tell me, when do you make a stand? If not the threat of being removed from
power, what can you do or say that would force him to comply? Sometimes war
is the necessary evil.
>
> Bimo
BTW, sorry for getting you confused with Ivan. Again, thanks for the
reasonable debate, and that goes for you t Ivan. Lets hope others keep it
reasonable.
Dusty Rhodes
Martin Eriksson
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Martin Eriksson wrote:
>
> Why are there so many of these posts in csipgfs?
Lotsa Big Brains
DrOk
Vern Pellerin
>
>"Dusty Rhodes" wrote:
>
>> Congress passed a resolution to approve Military force with or without the
>> USELESS UN.
><snip>
>
>Well, I think many of us feel UN is far from useless !! Nevermind !!
Nope. It's useless.
>But bombing and shooting people simply doesnt solve anything.
Should we kiss them and hug them? Should we let them cover up our women and
beat the shit out of the poor defensless women? Should we let them rape our
women and then stone the women to death for "having sex outside of marrage".
Oh I see, beatings, torture, rape, dictatorship . . . it's just a different
way of doing things, and we should always respect EVERY culture, no
matter how primitive and stone age it is, right?
You may love women being raped and beaten. You may love dictatorships. You
may love seeing people get beaten and thrown in jail because they said
something that the government didn't approve of. You may love a state
controlled media that is not allowed to ever criticise anything but America or
Israel. You may love schoolbooks that teach racism against Jews. You may
love all that, but I don't.
>Most military experts outside USA, including the american weapons
>inspectors, all agree the Iraq does NOT have nuclear capabilities.
Utter and complete LIES. Total lies. Massive, overwhelming, flamingly
BLATENT lies. They say we don't know WHAT Iraq's nuclear capabilities are.
Iraq,
>even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds nest
>for terrorists.
Again, lies. There's overwhelming evidence that terrorists are in many middle
eastern countries, including Iraq. There's overwhelming evidence that Iraq
has supported terrorist activities. For some reason, you have made a
conscious choice to LIE to yourself and others, and force yourself to believe
that terrorism doesn't exist in Iraq for what-ever psychotic need you may
have.
>Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
>conventional war.
So we have to give up? Hehe. Nope.
>They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to fight
>them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone gets
>their lives destoyed by war.
No, it will take a multi-faceted approach. In some cases, books are needed.
In other cases, bombs are needed. To take the idea that education is the ONLY
answer, is extremely narrow and naive. Same could be said for war. War is
not the only solution, but sometimes it takes big bombs, before the door is
open to big books.
Vern Pellerin
>> Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in
>the
>> islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
>> Rejecting the rights of individuals.
>
>This is where you go wrong.
>Islam is NOT the root of terrorism, and Iraq for that matter, is not the
>cradle for Islam.
No, this is where YOU go completely dead wrong. Hardcore Islam is the root of
the narrow-mindedness that leads to complete ignorance and shunning of the
outside world, builds a fear and hatred of the outside world, and produces
strong feelings of racism against those who don't believe the same way.
Here's a few Koran quotes that I snipped from an earlier post:
[5.51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes
them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely allah does
not guide the unjust people.
[2.191] And KILL THEM (christians and Jews) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM,
and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is
severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred
mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then
slay them; SUCH IS THE RECOMPENSE OF THE UNBELIEVERS
(non-muslims who will not convert).
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and
religion should be ONLY for allah, but if they desist (submit), then
there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[4.89] They (christians and Jews) desire that you should disbelieve as
they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore
take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in
allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL THEM
wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a
helper.
[8.65] O Prophet! URGE THE BELIEVERS (muslims) TO WAR; if there are
twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if
there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who
disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege
them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and
keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them;
surely allah is forgiving, merciful.
[9.14] FIGHT THEM, ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS and bring them
to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a
believing people.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of allah; and the Christians
say: The Messiah (Jesus) is the son of allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before;
MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM; how they are turned away!
>The middle-east, and the generations of palestinians and arabs who have seen
>their children and / or parent shot in refugee camps
(shot in retaliation for attacks against innocent Israeli citizens).
, driven over by tanks,
(Driven over in retaliation for attacks against innocent Israeli citizens)
>shot and mutelated without any chance to fight back....
(shot, but never mutelated on purpose, only mutelated as a natural result of a
tank shell or bomb explosion which was fired in retaliation for attacks on
innocent Israeli citizens. As for "fighting back", that's what the Israelis
are doing for constant terrorist attacks against innocent civilians.)
thats where the
>cradle of international terrorism lies...
Yep, it lies with Palestinians who teach racism, hatred, hardcore religion
that says convert them or kill them. You're right, that IS where terrorism
lies. It lies in the heart of intollerance. Jews don't teach hatred of
Palestinians. But Palestinians teach their kids that Jews bake bread from the
blood of Palestinians. Palestinians have school books that teach children to
hate the Zionist entity. Palestinians pray for the destruction of Israel.
Israel does not pray for the destruction of Palestinians. Israel prays for
peace, but instead gets bombs in civilian areas every single day.
As for the plight of the Palestinians . . . they are 100% totally responsible
for their own level of destruction. They pick on Israel until Israel has to
fight back, and then they scream to the world, "look, the bully is picking on
me". But when the cameras are turned off, the Palestinians immediately go
right back to throwing rocks, shooting Israelis, blowing up innocent
civilians, teaching their kids that all Jews must be killed, strapping bomb
belts onto babies, etc.
You may love terrorists who kill innocent civilians, but I have no sympathy
for them. None. You love terrorists, I don't. There's no excuse for blowing
up civilians and then crying "help me, the tanks are after me". If they don't
want the tanks in their face, then stop sending suicide bombers to constantly
kill innocent civilians.
>They are a statesless people with noone listening to them.. thats where
>terrorists are born.... NOT in Iraq, even if they give housing to some of
>them.
They are stateless because they are barbaric. If they stopped preaching
hatred of Jews, stopped trying to constantly kill every Jew, stopped
preaching hatred of Israel, stopped preaching hatred of America, stopped
preaching the destruction of Israel, stopped preaching the destruction of
America, STARTED preaching acceptance of others with diverse ideas and diverse
religions, started having fair and honest elections, started giving people
more freedom to criticise their own government rather than ONLY being
allowed to criticise Israel and America, THEN they would end up becoming
civilized enough to earn their own state from peace. Right now, they are
barbaric, and they are trying to force the acceptance of a state created by
the blood of racism against Jews, and terrorism against civilians.
Steve
"Bimo" <abc@work> wrote in message
news:3dcbfdd0$0$252$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Dusty Rhodes" wrote:
>
> > Congress passed a resolution to approve Military force with or without
the
> > USELESS UN.
> <snip>
>
> Well, I think many of us feel UN is far from useless !! Nevermind !!
It is. The U.N. is nothing more than an attempt to bring "parity" to the
world forum. That is countries banding together to equal the power of the
U.S. The anti-US sentiment in the UN is palpable and real.
> Abot going to war against Iraq.
> I was shocked the 11.Sept, and will forever remember what I was doing that
> afternoon.
> The people responsible for this should ofcause pay !
No, they should die. Don't try and reason with those who want to kill you.
You just kill them before they kill you. Harsh? Yes. Politically correct?
No. The reality of the world? Absolutely.
>
> But bombing and shooting people simply doesnt solve anything.
Wrong. War is the final arm of politics. You dont have to like it, the Lord
knows I don't, but war does solve probelms. For instance, war can solve the
immediate threat posed by those who wish us harm. When executed brutally,
leathally, resolutely and with steadfast understanding war does work. War
solved the German problem (twice), prevented the Korean penesula from
becoming completely oppressive and liberated a country invaded by a
neighbor.
> Most military experts outside USA, including the american weapons
> inspectors, all agree the Iraq does NOT have nuclear capabilities. Iraq,
> even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds nest
> for terrorists.
Says who? Do you really believe that if you don't hear "evidence" on CSPAN
or CNN or Fox, it doesn't exist?
>
> Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> conventional war.
>
>They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to
fight
> them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone
gets
> their lives destoyed by war.
Wrong again. The only way to fight terrorists is to kill them. Quickly. You
can hand out granola bars, hug trees, go to sesitivity seminars and wish
what you said was true. Hell, you can even pretend that it is. Here's the
meat of the nut: we don't need to "understand", "enlighten" or otherwise to
anything other than but ordinance through thier mud shack's wall. The
difference between you and me is that you talk about the world the way you
wish it was. I talk about the world with the understanding of what it
actually is. I don't like it; I don't want war. However, I understand and
accept the truth of what the situation is and will be. We can all wish for
things to be different. We can all wish the horror of war does not touch
another life, ever. The sad fact is that it's either us or them. I choose
us, and a speedy death for them.
I know that sounds cruel, rude and cold.
-Steve
>
> Bimo
>
>
zmike6
such a weapon would result in awful consequences for them. I'd only
expect them to use weapons of mass destruction if they perceive a
reason to...(e.g. Saddam Hussein is about to be killed or captured.)
Hussein is more secular and more pragmatic than the fanatical
Al-Quaeda types, I doubt he would risk losing his position of power by
employing a suicidal strategy of attacking the US or US allies. I
think Saddam will make a show of co-operating with the UN directives
as slowly and relctantly as possible, just enough to try to forestall
US action. If it does turn to war, I hope the upcoming conflict does
not provoke the attack it is ostensibly intended to prevent.
Not to mention the unforseeable future consequences of becoming even
more involved in the Middle East. If we successfully force regime
change in Iraq now, who's to know what future Bin Ladin type will be
inspired to take revenge, ten, twenty years from now? It's a hard
call, trying to predict the long term effects of something like this.
zmike6
"terrorist"? A lot of nations and individuals dislike the US, and/or
plan for the US's destruction. Aren't Russia and China more dangerous
than say Iraq, yet we maintain co-existence with them (so far). The
"us or them" strategy could lead to a pretty lonely planet, and the US
would not necessarily end up surviving. I'm not against killing bona
fide terrorists, I cheered when I heard about the Al-Qaida car that
got fragged the other day.
As far as Iraq, seems to me Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iran are all more
relevant to terrorism than Iraq.
J. Clarke
says...
> "Dr Oddness Killtroll" wrote...
>
> > > Iraq, even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the
> worlds
> > > nest
> > > for terrorists.
> >
> > Its not that simple Lars. Iraq represents a state of governance, an
> > unwillingness to give the people the rights they deserve, throughout the
> ME.
>
> I agree, but that still doesnt give USA the right to go to war against
> Iraq..
> Why Iraq... why not Turkey... Greece... Spain.... Ireland.... they all have
> large terrorist fractions ?
The longest journey begins with a single step. As for Ireland, the
Brits are already working on that and haven't asked for help, and as far
as I know Turkey, Greece, and Spain have not invaded their neighbors any
time in the past 50 years or so, nor have they given any indication that
they are attempting to develop and likely to deploy weapons of mass
destruction (which category is not limited to nuclear weapons). Further
none of them has expressed enmity toward the US.
> > > Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
> > > conventional war.
> >
> > Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in
> the
> > islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
> > Rejecting the rights of individuals.
>
> This is where you go wrong.
> Islam is NOT the root of terrorism, and Iraq for that matter, is not the
> cradle for Islam.
This is to a certain extent correct. Further, I seriously doubt that
Saddam is any more a devout Muslim than I am, although in his position
he may go through the motions and pay it lip service.
> The middle-east, and the generations of palestinians and arabs who have seen
> their children and / or parent shot in refugee camps, driven over by tanks,
> shot and mutelated without any chance to fight back.... thats where the
> cradle of international terrorism lies...
> They are a statesless people with noone listening to them.. thats where
> terrorists are born.... NOT in Iraq, even if they give housing to some of
> them.
So who shot in refugee camps, drove tanks over, shot, and/or mutilated
the children or parents of the nth-generation Saudis who perpetrated
9/11? If that had been perpetrated by Palestinians or others who have
been in the situation you describe then there might be some justice to
your viewpoint, but it was not, it was perpetrated by a gang of
privileged Saudi adherents to a lunatic-fringe branch of Islam.
The point which you seem to fail to grasp is that Al Quaeda is one nest
of terrorists. Saddam at least pretends to have at his disposal another
nest of them. Both have to be dealt with. So do the Palestinian
terrorists, but Israel is working on that and hasn't asked for help. So
do any other terrorists out there.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
> > I also don't wish for a Madman to
> > ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
>
> Hmm.. This sounds kind of selfish.. I mean, it's their country and thus,
> their oil. What gives any country excuse to call up rights on that oil? Not
> that an average Iraqui has had a lot of benefits from it.. Only problems..
Saddam has shown that if he thinks he can get away with it he will take
control not only of Iraq's oil but of everybody else's as well. And
that having done so he will attempt to destroy it rather than letting it
be taken back.
> And I doubt Saddam is mad..
Depends on how you define "mad". But anybody who has studied history
knows that pissing off the US is not the brightest thing that one can
do. The last outfit but one to do a really good job of it ended up with
starfire raining down on his cities four years later. It's still not
clear what horrible thing is going to happen to the current crew.
> Far from it.. But, talks are that one of his
> sons is a pretty insane figure (crashing the wedding, kidnapping the bride,
> rapeing and then killing her sounds like it).. He is a source of
> instability, though, but you have to admit US have been using him for some
> purposes (like military presence and securing the oil, which is logical).. I
> mean, Bush Senior could have easily put thim down before (ok, there were
> some issues about the effect it would have on the region because Saddam's
> regime was also keeping some other countries from territorial aspirations,
> like Iran) but I don't see that the reasons against have changed so much in
> the last 10 years..
No, the reasons against it haven't changed. The fact remains that Iraq
can be dealt with now or it can be dealt with later, but unless
something drastic changes it will have to be dealt with eventually, and
a lot of folks are down on Bush Sr. for leaving unfinished business.
> Only the citizens there suffered from the lack of food
> and medical supplies.
> It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those poor
> people who pay the price..
Yep. And if Bush Sr. had finished the job he started those people would
not be suffering.
J. Clarke
says...
> "Dusty Rhodes" wrote...
>
> > I respect your views Bimo, as I do from all sides. But it is the touchy
> > feely attitude that I feel has gotten us into this mess. I and millions
> of
> > others are tired of it and it is time to act.
> <snip>
>
> And I respect your views Dusty.
> What I disagree with, is when educated men ( like PapaDoc ) starts to call
> terrorists "towelheaded murderes".
>
> I respect that you think USA has the right to go to war against Iraq, and
> that a strong hand against terrorism is the only way to provail.
> I simply think its wrong.
>
> You can only kill terrorism by killing what feeds them, and what feeds them
> is war, destruction, supression and not knowing.
> For every 10 Iraqi men you kill, _one_ son will be back, with only one wish,
> and that is to die, killing as many americans as possible.
You mean like the 700,000 German sons who cam back "with only one wish,
and that is to die, killing as many Americans as possible"? Or the
180,000 Japanese? What about the 2,130,000 Russians who by your
calculation did the same for the Germans? Or the 1,324,000 Chinese who
your logic suggests wanted to destroy Japan?
If in fact this would happen in Iraq that would indicate that there is
something culturally different about Iraq when compared with Germany,
Japan, and Russia that causes their people to seek revenge rather than
going on with their lives. Now, since you seem to think that Islam
could not be responsible for such a thing, what _do_ you believe to be
the cultural difference?
> That might be the single one man who brings the next terrorist action to
> american soil.
Funny that none of those 880,000 Germans and Japanese that by your
reasoning were the inevitable result of WWII did such a thing.
Bimo
> The longest journey begins with a single step. As for Ireland, the
> Brits are already working on that and haven't asked for help, and as far
> as I know Turkey, Greece, and Spain have not invaded their neighbors any
> time in the past 50 years or so, nor have they given any indication that
> they are attempting to develop and likely to deploy weapons of mass
> destruction (which category is not limited to nuclear weapons). Further
> none of them has expressed enmity toward the US.
Im not trying to campare Ireland to Iraq, just saying that many countries
have housed terrorist over the years, and we havent started wars againt
those countries for that matter.
Nor should we this time with Iraq.
And as far as Iraq threadning USA, I dont beleive there has been any
official threads.
Iraq has a long way accepted the UN demands.
USA should give that a shot first.
> So who shot in refugee camps, drove tanks over, shot, and/or mutilated
> the children or parents of the nth-generation Saudis who perpetrated
> 9/11? If that had been perpetrated by Palestinians or others who have
> been in the situation you describe then there might be some justice to
> your viewpoint, but it was not, it was perpetrated by a gang of
> privileged Saudi adherents to a lunatic-fringe branch of Islam.
That is correct, but they feed on the hate towards the western word, based
on the middle-east conflict.
Osama Bin Laden has said so himself.
Bimo
Bimo
> You mean like the 700,000 German sons who cam back "with only one wish,
> and that is to die, killing as many Americans as possible"? Or the
> 180,000 Japanese? What about the 2,130,000 Russians who by your
> calculation did the same for the Germans? Or the 1,324,000 Chinese who
> your logic suggests wanted to destroy Japan?
You cant use that logic.
The Germans and the Japanese were the agressors, they were defeated, their
countries bombed.
And the world was different then.
Terrorism is alive because that is the way they spread their message.
Without any global TV networks or radio stations covering terrorism, without
you and me knowing what they did, what their message was, their acts would
be useless, and terrorism would die.
Bimo
Bimo
> > I respect that you think USA has the right to go to war against Iraq,
and
> > that a strong hand against terrorism is the only way to provail.
> > I simply think its wrong.
>
> What are the other options. When thinking of this, remember, time is
> Hussiens friend. The more time we take to make a decision, implement it,
> and follow it thru, means another minute closer he is to having the
weapons
> he wants to do what he wants. Once he has nukes, it will be too late. We
> will never get anyone in there. Then who knows what he will attempt with
> the NUKE CARD in his hand.
I simply dont believe Iraq would use Nuclear weapons.
Russian terrorist on the other hand.... wheew !!!
What I think USA should do, is like Bush does, deliever a strong answer to
the terrorists.
Never talk to them.
Never give in.
International terrorism needs money and information. Stop that flow.
Infiltrate their organisations.
Im not saying USA should not spill blood, or strike on forreign soil.
But starting a full scale war against an Islam country.... thats simply
sticking the head into the lions mouth, and it will NOT solva anything when
it comes to dealing with terrorism !!!
> There has to be a stand made. Now is the time. Wait any longer and he
will
> wave a Nuke in the face of the UN and tell them to stuff it. Then who
will
> he threaten? Isreal? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait again as their 19th province?
> Iran, who he has already gone to war with and used Chemical Weapons?
> Turkey, who is a member of NATO and leans to the west? Jordan, who is
more
> and more the moderate Arab state of the region?
You're wrong
Iraq would naver wave nukes at UN.... NOBODY, even the Iraqi are that
stupid.
What you seem to forget is, that Iraq HAVE HAD weapons of mass destruction.
He used them on his own population... the Kurds, NOT the Irani as you claim.
They are gone now.... everybody says so, so why is the situation worse now ?
And about the Iraq / Iran war... what side did USA take in that war ?
Bimo
Ivan Jozic
> control not only of Iraq's oil but of everybody else's as well. And
> that having done so he will attempt to destroy it rather than letting it
> be taken back.
That is the usual behaviour when you're experiencing defeats. Ok, he might
be mad but not crazy - I chosed the wrong words..
> Depends on how you define "mad". But anybody who has studied history
> knows that pissing off the US is not the brightest thing that one can
> do. The last outfit but one to do a really good job of it ended up with
> starfire raining down on his cities four years later. It's still not
> clear what horrible thing is going to happen to the current crew.
>
Hey, it might not have turned up that way. He was gambling and if he
continued and overrun the Saudi arabia, there would be no ground for the US
to mount the offensive on him. He mistaked, forunatelly.
> No, the reasons against it haven't changed. The fact remains that Iraq
> can be dealt with now or it can be dealt with later, but unless
> something drastic changes it will have to be dealt with eventually, and
> a lot of folks are down on Bush Sr. for leaving unfinished business.
>
Yes, this is all true.
> Yep. And if Bush Sr. had finished the job he started those people would
> not be suffering.
>
Yeah. Bad call, I guess, for us; but FUCKIN' bad call for the people who
followed and opposed Saddam or those Kurdes who did the same and found
themselves in crossfire between Turkey and Iraq. NEither want them and they
have no country. Fuckin' bad situation!
Ivan Jozic
> countries, threatening invasion, using WMD's against other countries, we
can
> agree on, are No No's. He has done all of this, plus oppressed his own
I understand what you mean and agree of course, but was reffering how what
you wrote in the post sounded..
>I also don't wish for a Madman to
>ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
> > And I doubt Saddam is mad.. Far from it.
>
> Bimo, using chemical agents against your own people, and in a war that had
> no meaning, is indeed the mark of a madman. No sane, intelligent, or
> thoughtful person would do such atrocious acts, all in the name of staying
> in power and ruling with an iron fist.
Have you ever had that power? Especially in a country like that? You can't
take democratic standards you experienced and try to apply them to Iraq for
a judgement (at least, not for some time).. He's in charge and he'll do
anything to stay on the power (what will he do otherwise? work on an oil
platform?).. If his people are rebelling against him, he sees them as
enemies. His soldiers also get priviliges they don't want to lose so they
defend Saddam.. It's a closed circle of poverty and Middle East (might as
well call it Wild East on some occasions)..
> You outline the reasons why Bush Senior couldn't do what he wanted to do.
> The international community said and formed a coalition, to get him OUT of
> Kuwait. Any further action would have met with that coalition
> disingergrating and the US acting on it's own, which the world community
has
> decried already. > The US hasn't used him at all. We have stood by for
far to long, though,
> while UN resolution after UN resolution has been >IGNORED and NOTHING
DONE.
C'mon, this is typical CNN, US propaganda bull. And you really buy all that
stuff? Listen, since US is the only dominating world power, they can decide
whether to listen to UN or not. What is UN? It's just smth on paper, because
it has no real power besides manifesting it through US military and living
of the US funds. I mean, who would get the Iraquis off the Kuwait? European
forces? The day when European "powers" start thinking as one only in
internal affairs is a pretty distant future. Not to mention agreeing on
military issues, not to mention that their armies are not mobile, trained,
sophisticated and in enough numbers to make such fast and effective job.
So, the US got the Iraquis out of the Kuwait, got into Iraq and were 24
hours from Baghdad. Their army was surrendering on all fronts and it would
just be a quick deal with the remnants of the Republican Guard. Some Iraquis
were rebelling against Saddam as well as the Kurds on the north (which was
organised by CIA and Bush Sr. was calling the people of Iraq for it) but
then.. Whooaaa. Stop.
Why? Because of the UN resolution, my ass! Taking it as an excuse for
stronger military presence in the Gulf thus more control of the oil
sources.. I mean, it's logical but the people in Iraq who rebelled bought
it, then those sanctions against that country.. It did not turn out so well.
> > It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those
> poor
> > people who pay the price..
>
> Bimo, tell that to Saddam. He invaded Kuwiat. He gassed his own
> countryman. He gassed the Iranians. He has threatened his neighbors time
> and again. He has threatened the worlds resource supply. All of this
> could have been avoided if he had acted responsibly and reasonably.
"all of this could have been avoided if he acted responsibly and
reasonably.." ..and if he was not such a bad ol' man agssing his people. How
bad can some people be? And that attack on Kuwait? I mean, really. Is oil
all he cares for? Doesn't he se the beazty of living in peace and seeking
other goals in life apart from money and power? Bla-bla. This is ridicilous.
Again. He is not some Western politician goddammit! And it was CIA who
trained him, who put him there were he is and gave him chemical and bio
weapon programmes to oppose Iranians (CIA was apparently very mad on the
Iranians who made a revolution).
> I must profess my confusion of some peoples continued opposition to all of
> this. NO ONE wants war. That is why it is so hotly debated.
> SYRIA voted for the UN resolution. That statement right there should say
it
> all!
Face the facts that Saddam's war programmes are now non-existing.. He is in
deep shit. He knows he's very close to be brought down and will do anything
to avoid it. If you believe war against Iraq is a war against terrorism, you
are wrong. It is just a charade. I don't have anything against putting him
down, but I'm opposing the meaning you give it to it. It's all about Iraq's
oil. Do you think that things will change rapidly when he is down? For the
better of those people? Do not be mistaken. The economy is destroyed and all
that will be changed is the control over oil and free supply of humanitarian
aid. Those people will have a lot of trouble organising the country again,
after living for so long under despotism. So, the Saddam's regime is
controlling it so far, one way or another. The new guy won't be much
different. He will steal, too, but will be much more subtle.
And don't give that Syrian vote any meaning. What is that worth? Also
another country in problems trying to suck up for some good points. The days
when they were helping the terrorists and opposing the US were the days they
were supported by USSR. And that is gone and they have to live off
something, don't they?
PAPADOC
our citizens we would take them out. The line gets drawn at attacking
our citizens or showing a desire to attack our citizens.
With the terrible weapons of today one cannot wait to absorb one
strike to prove that some country is willing to attack us. Absorbing
one attack could very well mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
deaths and the collapse of the US. We cannot allow that to happen.
That is what drives pre-emption.
Given that our stick is bigger than everyone elses sticks combined its
not a wise thing to threaten us.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001
www.papadoc.net
Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the
10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in
more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."
PAPADOC
Here is what we are doing to the terrorists....its not such a strange
thing...we are very good at it. They fucked up and believed that
leftist bullshit about the US being corrupt...ooops. We have been
killing thugs for a long long time...
================================================
"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip
out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of
our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the
bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got
to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly.
Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you
wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the
blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll
know what to do!
General George S. Patton."
================================================
Turns out one of the Towel Headed Murderers in the car we just hit
with a Hellfire was an American, he was the head of the Lackawanna, Ny
cell we just busted up....good, too bad we didnt catch the other 6 in
the car with him. Kill them, stack those fuckers up to the heaven then
pour bacon fat on them and lite the fuckers up.
PAPA DOC
J. Clarke
@yahoo.com says...
> Where do you draw the line, and what is the definition of a
> "terrorist"? A lot of nations and individuals dislike the US, and/or
> plan for the US's destruction. Aren't Russia and China more dangerous
> than say Iraq, yet we maintain co-existence with them (so far).
Russia? What does Russia have against the US? The Communist government
of the Soviet Union was a problem, but I don't see any reason to believe
that the Russian government is a danger, and the Russian _people_
certainly aren't.
And near as I can tell China is more of a danger to Taiwan than to
anybody else--they couldn't care less about the US except to the extent
that the US is an obstacle to regaining Taiwan.
But as far as co-existence goes, there's not really much choice--in the
case of the Soviet Union the options were co-exist or blow the whole
world to Hell. And with China, well, imagine Vietnam only with 16 times
as many Viet Cong and 28 times the territory for them to hide in.
> The
> "us or them" strategy could lead to a pretty lonely planet, and the US
> would not necessarily end up surviving. I'm not against killing bona
> fide terrorists, I cheered when I heard about the Al-Qaida car that
> got fragged the other day.
>
> As far as Iraq, seems to me Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iran are all more
> relevant to terrorism than Iraq.
That may be the case. So what would you have us do? Invade one of
those countries first? Would you be happy if instead of Iraq, Libya was
the next target?
Vern Pellerin
>I simply dont believe Iraq would use Nuclear weapons.
>Russian terrorist on the other hand.... wheew !!!
Russian terrorists ARE muslim terrorists. Same threat, different place. Same
problem we're dealing with all over the middle east AND Russia and the PI and
every other poor nation. That theatre hostage routine is what turned Russia's
vote around against Iraq, even though it formerly was opposed to war against
Iraq because of all the deals it had with Iraq.
These idiot terrorists are so stupid it's utterly shocking. France opposes
the war against Iraq, so they bomb a French oil tanker. Russia opposes war
against Iraq, so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of hostages.
Sounds to me like Islamic terrorists are REALLY trying to unite the entire
world against them in pure hatred.
>Im not saying USA should not spill blood, or strike on forreign soil.
>But starting a full scale war against an Islam country.... thats simply
>sticking the head into the lions mouth,
Yep, and a full scale war against an Islam country sends a much stronger
message than the total and complete pussy idea of not talking to them. Oh
you're all BAD men, I'm not talking to you! Jeez, you MUST be a girl.
The silent treatment was already tried in Afganistan. The Taliban had free
control with no one talking to them. And they destroyed every last remaining
freedom in the country. No sports, no connections with the outside world,
regular beatings for women, etc., etc, etc.
and it will NOT solva anything when
>it comes to dealing with terrorism !!!
Actually, it will solve everything. And that's what you're afraid of. For
what-ever reason, you don't want America to solve the problem. You want to
keep the problems going.
>You're wrong
>Iraq would naver wave nukes at UN.... NOBODY, even the Iraqi are that
>stupid.
Dude, you're psycho. Total psycho. Almost as psycho as Sadman. Why do you
LOVE supporting terrorism so much? What's at stake for you? You have family
in Iraq that are high up in the republican guard? If Amerca goes to war
against Iraq, who's gonna die that you love so much? What's the REAL story
here? You can't be this naieve that you truely believe Saddam is peaceful.
No one is really that stupid. So what's going on? Who are you trying to
protect? Or do you work for Saddam? Is he threateding to rape your wife if
you don't come here and defend him every single day? What's the REAL scoop
here? Is he torturing you?
>And about the Iraq / Iran war... what side did USA take in that war ?
That is HISTORY you fu@#in freak! Over time, things C-H-A-N-G-E you total and
complete moron. We supported one side IN THE PAST, now we switched. GET OVER
IT you dumb fu@#. Do you get it now? PAST. HISTORY. GONE. DONE. FINISHED.
WRAP YOUR TINY BRAIN CELL AROUND THE IDEA that the PAST no longer matters.
Jeeez you're a psycho little ass-fu@#ed Saddam loving wussy.
Vern Pellerin
>
>Here is what we are doing to the terrorists....its not such a strange
>thing...we are very good at it. They fucked up and believed that
>leftist bullshit about the US being corrupt...ooops. We have been
>killing thugs for a long long time...
>
>================================================
>"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip
>out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of
>our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the
>bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got
>to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly.
>Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you
>wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the
>blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll
>know what to do!
>General George S. Patton."
>================================================
>
>Turns out one of the Towel Headed Murderers in the car we just hit
>with a Hellfire was an American, he was the head of the Lackawanna, Ny
>cell we just busted up....good, too bad we didnt catch the other 6 in
>the car with him. Kill them, stack those fuckers up to the heaven then
>pour bacon fat on them and lite the fuckers up.
>
>PAPA DOC
FUCK YES ! ! !
Vern Pellerin
>In article <p0ipsu0v2v7q31kh6...@4ax.com>, zmike6
>@yahoo.com says...
>> Where do you draw the line, and what is the definition of a
>> "terrorist"? A lot of nations and individuals dislike the US, and/or
>> plan for the US's destruction. Aren't Russia and China more dangerous
>> than say Iraq, yet we maintain co-existence with them (so far).
>
>Russia? What does Russia have against the US? The Communist government
>of the Soviet Union was a problem, but I don't see any reason to believe
>that the Russian government is a danger, and the Russian _people_
>certainly aren't.
The Chechen rebels are Muslim rebels. The U.S. media avoids the use of the
word Muslim, because they don't want to insight anti-sentiment against a
religion. But almost EVERY single time you hear the word "rebels" on the T.V.
news, you can replace the word "rebels" with "muslim rebels".
The general Russian population is fine with America. But the extremist muslim
Russians are the same as muslims in the middle east. They only want to
convert people to Islam, or KILL them.
>> As far as Iraq, seems to me Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iran are all more
>> relevant to terrorism than Iraq.
>
>That may be the case. So what would you have us do? Invade one of
>those countries first? Would you be happy if instead of Iraq, Libya was
>the next target?
After Iraq, Iran should be next. Iran is REALLY oppressing the hell out of
their people. Torture, beatings, jail time for anyone and everyone . . . for
simple things like a kiss on the forehead in public, etc. The Iranian
hardliners are going total freakin' psycho right now.
Dusty Rhodes
>
> As far as Iraq, seems to me Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iran are all more
> relevant to terrorism than Iraq.
>
Yemen: Cooperating with the US and has allowed Special Forces to traing them
in Anti Terror tactics on their land. Car that was destroyed was destroyed
in Yemen, and they said nothing. They are on our side for now.
Syria: Voted with us on the UN council, and sent troops to fight Iraq
during DS in '91.
Libya: Really a non-entity since the Aardvarks made a visit to them in the
80's.
Iran: There is a strong movement in Iran to be more pro-west. Yes they are
a problem, but they also have such a strong movement that any action on our
part, publically, could crush that movement. Their PM is actually pro-west.
Let them work it out themselves. The Religious Fundamentalists there are
going to suffer a great defeat from within.
Iraq isolated itself long ago, by its well documented actions against its
own people and of soverign foreign nations. They have then failed to abide
by the cease fire THEY SIGNED in a war they started. Their isolation hasn't
just been to the western world but to the Middle Eastern countries too.
Witness to that is Yemen, who allowed SF troops on their own soil to train
them and there on going rounding up of known terrorists. Syria who voted
for the UN resolution against Iraq. Iraq made this bed, now it is time to
lay in it.
Dusty Rhodes
Dusty Rhodes
do.
> > The international community said and formed a coalition, to get him OUT
of
> > Kuwait. Any further action would have met with that coalition
> > disingergrating and the US acting on it's own, which the world community
> has
> > decried already. > The US hasn't used him at all. We have stood by for
> far to long, though,
> > while UN resolution after UN resolution has been >IGNORED and NOTHING
> DONE.
>
> C'mon, this is typical CNN, US propaganda bull. And you really buy all
that
> stuff?
Watch it partner, you will be drawing a line in the sand that could turn
pretty ugly here if you want to start calling me a propogandist. Because I
am informed, stay informed, and listen to both sides, means I draw
conclusions with the vast information I have at my disposal, FROM BOTH
SIDES! That is called intelligence and common sense and an informed
opinion.
Listen, since US is the only dominating world power, they can decide
> whether to listen to UN or not. What is UN? It's just smth on paper,
because
> it has no real power besides manifesting it through US military and living
> of the US funds.
Then why are their 5 Security Council Members with VETO power over anything?
If this is a US controlled group, why in hell would we allow Red China to
have Veto rights over our decisions. This is a gathering of nations and is
intended to draw the nations together to make important decisions about the
world so no one country can wield all that power. There are seveal times it
has dropped the ball. Luckily the US has picked it up. Un-luckily we have
picked up the ball a few times too.
I mean, who would get the Iraquis off the Kuwait? European
> forces? The day when European "powers" start thinking as one only in
> internal affairs is a pretty distant future. Not to mention agreeing on
> military issues, not to mention that their armies are not mobile, trained,
> sophisticated and in enough numbers to make such fast and effective job.
Who? The World sir. And they did. Yes we had the vast majority of troops
involved, because we have the most powerful, well equipped, and trained
military in the world. Someone has to lead, and that is what the US does.
>
> So, the US got the Iraquis out of the Kuwait, got into Iraq and were 24
> hours from Baghdad. Their army was surrendering on all fronts and it would
> just be a quick deal with the remnants of the Republican Guard. Some
Iraquis
> were rebelling against Saddam as well as the Kurds on the north (which was
> organised by CIA and Bush Sr. was calling the people of Iraq for it) but
> then.. Whooaaa. Stop.
> Why? Because of the UN resolution, my ass! Taking it as an excuse for
> stronger military presence in the Gulf thus more control of the oil
> sources.. I mean, it's logical but the people in Iraq who rebelled bought
> it, then those sanctions against that country.. It did not turn out so
well.
You are showing a propensity to by uninformed and taking positions based on
how you think the world works. Had George Sr. went in and taken Iraq
completely, it was threatened by several Middle Eastern Nations that they
would back out of the coalition. INCLUDING SYRIA AND SAUDI ARABIA!!!!! We
could not have executed a war against the whole Iraqi nation, at that time,
without Sauid Arabia and the backing of the Middle Eastern Countries who
were part of the coalition! They needed Sadaam in power to stabalize the
region NOT US. That is why they threatened to pull support. What then,
should we have acted alone? That is what everyone is bitching about now, us
going it alone!
>
> > > It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those
> > poor
> > > people who pay the price.
So you think they are better off in the long run with Sadaam in power and
suppressing them forever, or liverating their country and taking some losses
in order to give their children an actual future? The price of freedom IS
NOT FREE. It is paid for in blood and history backs that up 100%! It isn't
the rich and privileged that back freedom as much as the poor and the little
guy. They are poor now because there are no jobs due to Sadaam making
decisions that hurt Iraqi people and keep him in power.
> Again. He is not some Western politician goddammit! And it was CIA who
> trained him, who put him there were he is and gave him chemical and bio
> weapon programmes to oppose Iranians (CIA was apparently very mad on the
> Iranians who made a revolution).
And Sadaam repaid us by becoming a complete menace to the world. It wasn't
us who changed, it was him. He gained power and now continues to make
decisions for the sole purpose of staying in power, damn the Iraqi people.
> Face the facts that Saddam's war programmes are now non-existing.
How in the hell do you know this to be true? You recieve the national
security and intelligence breifings that the President does each day? What
information or source are you using to make this assertion?
He is in
> deep shit.
That sir is a gigantic understatement.
He knows he's very close to be brought down and will do anything
> to avoid it. If you believe war against Iraq is a war against terrorism,
you
> are wrong
No I am not wrong because I don't believe this is all about the war on
terrorism. It is also about him signing a cease fire agreement and then
breaking the conditions of it and refusing to comply with it. The war on
terrorism is a minor part of this, however it IS INVOLVED!. Abu Nidal, one
of the world most feared and worst Terrorist was killed while living in
Bahgdad. How many of his supporters were living there with him. You think
he was living there and holding down a 9-5 job?
It is just a charade. I don't have anything against putting him
> down, but I'm opposing the meaning you give it to it. It's all about
Iraq's
> oil.
It's all about him living up to an agreement he signed and refuses to abide
by. Oil is a weapon and a means for him to be rich and build palace after
grand palace. It is a way of rebuiolding his military force, instead of
feeding and caring for his people, like the UN mandates states he is
supposed to do. Free Iraq from Sadaam and free Iraq oil for open sales on
the world market. How much better do you think the Iraqi's will be then?
Do you think that things will change rapidly when he is down? For the
> better of those people? Do not be mistaken. The economy is destroyed and
all
> that will be changed is the control over oil and free supply of
humanitarian
> aid. Those people will have a lot of trouble organising the country again,
> after living for so long under despotism.
The Iraqi economy would change drastically! Billions in oil revenue from
the world market would change things drastically. People like yourself fail
to realize that Iraq has the infastructure, though it would need very little
help to get working again, to make it a major player in the Middle East and
the world. With international help, the people of Iraq could easily get
their country up and running as it could have been for the last 10 years.
Instead Sadaam has used the vast wealth of the oil he has as a weapon
against his own people, while doing as other repressive govt's do, blame
their problems on the western society.
So, the Saddam's regime is
> controlling it so far, one way or another. The new guy won't be much
> different. He will steal, too, but will be much more subtle.
That is pure speculation on your part. At least he will have complete
international support, no WMD's, and infastructure already in place to
effectively run the day to day operations of a country, no neighbors who
harbor ill-will toward him, and most of all a free people to boot his ass
out if they find out he is stealing. Does Sadaam enjoy any of the above?
>
> And don't give that Syrian vote any meaning. What is that worth?
That statement shows how little you know about Middle Eastern politics and
who does what in that region.
The days
> when they were helping the terrorists and opposing the US were the days
they
> were supported by USSR. And that is gone and they have to live off
> something, don't they?
Syria has chosen, for the most part to be a player and supporter of the
international community. And you blame them for that? Would you rather
have them go back to their old ways (admittedly they still have some issue's
that need to be addressed)?
Dusty Rhodes
>
>
Dusty Rhodes
> I simply dont believe Iraq would use Nuclear weapons.
And you are willing to bet how many lives on that guess of yours? Think
your mind might be changed if you had the intelligence information at the
disposal of the President of the US or the leaders of the otehr nations who
have signed on? Lets face it, it isn't just him using a NUKE, it is his
ability to pass it on to groups he is associated with that could and would
use it that worries people the most.
> Russian terrorist on the other hand.... wheew !!!
Yes, Muslim rebels. Case in point of what I said above. And Sadaam has
ties to that group.
>
> What I think USA should do, is like Bush does, deliever a strong answer to
> the terrorists.
> Never talk to them.
> Never give in.
> International terrorism needs money and information. Stop that flow.
> Infiltrate their organisations.
And just let the mass killings of innocent civilians go answered by
announcements of freezing the assets of suspected Islamic groups? You meet
force with that force necessary to overcome the force used against you. You
have to wage ANY war on several fronts. The military front is to protect
and defend, and part of that job involves killing if necessary. When you
have killed people of the US and it's allies, you now are subject to be
killed again. A dead terrorist can no longer kill. We aren't talking to
them, we aren't giving in to them, and we are going after their
international support and finances. Your problem is you are one dimensional
in your approach, which allows the other dimensions to kill our people.
>
> Im not saying USA should not spill blood, or strike on forreign soil.
> But starting a full scale war against an Islam country.... thats simply
> sticking the head into the lions mouth, and it will NOT solva anything
when
> it comes to dealing with terrorism !!!
It cetainly will solve a small problem, and that is the haven that the
terrorist have found in Iraq. The larger problem is that it will force
Sadaam to abide by the cease fire and UN resolutions, or be force out of
business. His choice.
You are also making a mistake that many are. You are attaching religion to
the business of a country. Islam has nothing to do with the day to day
running of a country. Islam doesn't feed it's people, or provide clothing
and medicine. It doesn't create jobs. Making responsible decisions do.
Syria is Muslim, and backed the UN resolution. You are falling into the
trap that Sadaam has, thinking the Muslim lion will show it's teeth to
protect him when it is showing it's teeth to him instead.
> You're wrong
> Iraq would naver wave nukes at UN.... NOBODY, even the Iraqi are that
> stupid.
How in hell do you know this? Why do you think he plays the on again off
again game he plays with the UN. To bide time. He knows that once he
possesses the all mighty NUKE, he gains the initiative. He doesnt' care
about his Iraqi people, he gassed masses of them. He only cares about
staying in power and owning the trigger to a nuke will do that.
> What you seem to forget is, that Iraq HAVE HAD weapons of mass
destruction.
> He used them on his own population... the Kurds, NOT the Irani as you
claim.
Again you are showing your lack of knowledge. This time in regards to
actual historical events. He used Mustard gas against the Iranians. This
is FACT that is on record! He has no qualms about using WMD's against his
people or another nation. Why let him gain a nuke?
> They are gone now.... everybody says so, so why is the situation worse now
?
Who is this everybody? Scott Ritter? That quack is being paid by a
pro-Sadaam backer to say the things he has said, which by the way COMPLETELY
contradict his statements on the same subject when he left Iraq in '98! He
admitted, in person, out of his meely sorry mouth, that he is being paid to
say these things.
>
> And about the Iraq / Iran war... what side did USA take in that war ?
They took Iraq's side. Sadaam then later turned his back on the US. We
didn't turn our backs on him!
Dusty Rhodes
Dusty Rhodes
Dusty Rhodes
"Vern Pellerin" <vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:W9cz9.79682$X9.26...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>These idiot terrorists are so stupid it's utterly shocking. France opposes
>the war against Iraq, so they bomb a French oil tanker. Russia opposes war
>against Iraq, so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of hostages.
>
Actually the Chechen Terrorists killed one hostage (accidentially -
the were aiming for somebody who decided to make a run for it and
missed).
The other 150+ were either asphixiated by the gas used by the
anti-terrorist police in an attempt to subdue the Chechens or died as
a result of the effects of the gas. Some survivors subsequently died
in hospital since the authorities withheld information as to the
nature of the gas and the Doctors were working blind -it turned out to
be a narcotic, so the standard treatment for heroin overdose worked
quite well.
Phil Young
J. Clarke
says...
> "J. Clarke" wrote...
>
> > You mean like the 700,000 German sons who cam back "with only one wish,
> > and that is to die, killing as many Americans as possible"? Or the
> > 180,000 Japanese? What about the 2,130,000 Russians who by your
> > calculation did the same for the Germans? Or the 1,324,000 Chinese who
> > your logic suggests wanted to destroy Japan?
>
> You cant use that logic.
> The Germans and the Japanese were the agressors, they were defeated, their
> countries bombed.
How does that make them different from Iraq? Iraq was the aggressor--
they invaded Kuwait. They were defeated, crushingly. Their country was
bombed.
> And the world was different then.
In what way was it "different"?
> Terrorism is alive because that is the way they spread their message.
> Without any global TV networks or radio stations covering terrorism, without
> you and me knowing what they did, what their message was, their acts would
> be useless, and terrorism would die.
You mean like it "died" in Northern Ireland? How about in pre-Soviet
Russia? Crazies have been blowing things up ever since gunpowder became
readily available.
What "message" did Al Quaeda "spread" other than "we are crazy and
terminally stupid so please Mr. Bush send the Marines to blow us to
Hell"?
J. Clarke
says...
> "Dusty Rhodes" wrote...
>
> > > I respect that you think USA has the right to go to war against Iraq,
> and
> > > that a strong hand against terrorism is the only way to provail.
> > > I simply think its wrong.
> >
> > What are the other options. When thinking of this, remember, time is
> > Hussiens friend. The more time we take to make a decision, implement it,
> > and follow it thru, means another minute closer he is to having the
> weapons
> > he wants to do what he wants. Once he has nukes, it will be too late. We
> > will never get anyone in there. Then who knows what he will attempt with
> > the NUKE CARD in his hand.
>
> I simply dont believe Iraq would use Nuclear weapons.
You have no idea how reassuring it is that some random voice posting on
the Internet has such faith. If you are wrong, I sincerely hope that
you find yourself far enough off the periphery of Ground Zero to survive
the experience. Barely.
> Russian terrorist on the other hand.... wheew !!!
>
> What I think USA should do, is like Bush does, deliever a strong answer to
> the terrorists.
> Never talk to them.
> Never give in.
> International terrorism needs money and information. Stop that flow.
> Infiltrate their organisations.
So how do you "stop that flow" without seizing control of the nations
that harbor the terrorists?
> Im not saying USA should not spill blood, or strike on forreign soil.
> But starting a full scale war against an Islam country.... thats simply
> sticking the head into the lions mouth, and it will NOT solva anything when
> it comes to dealing with terrorism !!!
The US is not "starting a war". The US is _finishing_ a war.
> > There has to be a stand made. Now is the time. Wait any longer and he
> will
> > wave a Nuke in the face of the UN and tell them to stuff it. Then who
> will
> > he threaten? Isreal? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait again as their 19th province?
> > Iran, who he has already gone to war with and used Chemical Weapons?
> > Turkey, who is a member of NATO and leans to the west? Jordan, who is
> more
> > and more the moderate Arab state of the region?
>
> You're wrong
> Iraq would naver wave nukes at UN.... NOBODY, even the Iraqi are that
> stupid.
Uh huh.
> What you seem to forget is, that Iraq HAVE HAD weapons of mass destruction.
> He used them on his own population... the Kurds, NOT the Irani as you claim.
> They are gone now.... everybody says so, so why is the situation worse now ?
Who is this "everybody" and if they are truly gone then why is he so
reluctant to let the UN inspectors confirm that.
>
> And about the Iraq / Iran war... what side did USA take in that war ?
Pretty much neutral. The Iranians didn't _want_ our help and the
Iraquis didn't need it until they started getting their butts kicked.
J. Clarke
says...
> "J. Clarke" wrote...
>
> > The longest journey begins with a single step. As for Ireland, the
> > Brits are already working on that and haven't asked for help, and as far
> > as I know Turkey, Greece, and Spain have not invaded their neighbors any
> > time in the past 50 years or so, nor have they given any indication that
> > they are attempting to develop and likely to deploy weapons of mass
> > destruction (which category is not limited to nuclear weapons). Further
> > none of them has expressed enmity toward the US.
>
> Im not trying to campare Ireland to Iraq, just saying that many countries
> have housed terrorist over the years, and we havent started wars againt
> those countries for that matter.
> Nor should we this time with Iraq.
Iraq started the war when they invaded Kuwait. This will just be a
delayed finish to it.
> And as far as Iraq threadning USA, I dont beleive there has been any
> official threads.
> Iraq has a long way accepted the UN demands.
> USA should give that a shot first.
The US has "given that a shot" ever since the end of Desert Storm. What
makes you think that anything is going to change now?
> > So who shot in refugee camps, drove tanks over, shot, and/or mutilated
> > the children or parents of the nth-generation Saudis who perpetrated
> > 9/11? If that had been perpetrated by Palestinians or others who have
> > been in the situation you describe then there might be some justice to
> > your viewpoint, but it was not, it was perpetrated by a gang of
> > privileged Saudi adherents to a lunatic-fringe branch of Islam.
>
> That is correct, but they feed on the hate towards the western word, based
> on the middle-east conflict.
> Osama Bin Laden has said so himself.
Who "feeds on the hate"? Bin Laden and his rich Saudi cohorts? All the
more reason that the world will be better off without them.
J. Clarke
> > Saddam has shown that if he thinks he can get away with it he will take
> > control not only of Iraq's oil but of everybody else's as well. And
> > that having done so he will attempt to destroy it rather than letting it
> > be taken back.
>
> That is the usual behaviour when you're experiencing defeats.
Only for small children. There are circumstances under which "scorched
earth" is a viable strategy. But the particular earth that he scorched
that time would have no effect at all on the outcome of the war.
> Ok, he might
> be mad but not crazy - I chosed the wrong words..
>
> > Depends on how you define "mad". But anybody who has studied history
> > knows that pissing off the US is not the brightest thing that one can
> > do. The last outfit but one to do a really good job of it ended up with
> > starfire raining down on his cities four years later. It's still not
> > clear what horrible thing is going to happen to the current crew.
> >
>
> Hey, it might not have turned up that way. He was gambling and if he
> continued and overrun the Saudi arabia, there would be no ground for the US
> to mount the offensive on him. He mistaked, forunatelly.
Yep. Big mistake.
> > No, the reasons against it haven't changed. The fact remains that Iraq
> > can be dealt with now or it can be dealt with later, but unless
> > something drastic changes it will have to be dealt with eventually, and
> > a lot of folks are down on Bush Sr. for leaving unfinished business.
> >
>
> Yes, this is all true.
>
> > Yep. And if Bush Sr. had finished the job he started those people would
> > not be suffering.
> >
>
> Yeah. Bad call, I guess, for us; but FUCKIN' bad call for the people who
> followed and opposed Saddam or those Kurdes who did the same and found
> themselves in crossfire between Turkey and Iraq. NEither want them and they
> have no country. Fuckin' bad situation!
Yep.
J. Clarke
> > mandatory. Saddam can control his oil all he wants, invading other
> > countries, threatening invasion, using WMD's against other countries, we
> can
> > agree on, are No No's. He has done all of this, plus oppressed his own
>
> I understand what you mean and agree of course, but was reffering how what
> you wrote in the post sounded..
> >I also don't wish for a Madman to
> >ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
>
>
> > > And I doubt Saddam is mad.. Far from it.
> >
> > Bimo, using chemical agents against your own people, and in a war that had
> > no meaning, is indeed the mark of a madman. No sane, intelligent, or
> > thoughtful person would do such atrocious acts, all in the name of staying
> > in power and ruling with an iron fist.
>
> Have you ever had that power? Especially in a country like that? You can't
> take democratic standards you experienced and try to apply them to Iraq for
> a judgement (at least, not for some time)..
Yes, you can. He has power. He can use it for good of himself or for
the good of his people. He chooses to use it for himself.
> He's in charge and he'll do
> anything to stay on the power (what will he do otherwise? work on an oil
> platform?)..
Take his millions and shack up with a houseful of hookers in Bangkok?
> If his people are rebelling against him, he sees them as
> enemies.
Perhaps if he didn't see them as enemies and treated them decently they
wouldn't be rebelling against him?
> His soldiers also get priviliges they don't want to lose so they
> defend Saddam.. It's a closed circle of poverty and Middle East (might as
> well call it Wild East on some occasions)..
The Iraqi people are poor only because Saddam chooses to keep them that
way.
It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.
> > > It's always like that.. Big guys are calling the shots, but it's those
> > poor
> > > people who pay the price..
> >
> > Bimo, tell that to Saddam. He invaded Kuwiat. He gassed his own
> > countryman. He gassed the Iranians. He has threatened his neighbors time
> > and again. He has threatened the worlds resource supply. All of this
> > could have been avoided if he had acted responsibly and reasonably.
>
> "all of this could have been avoided if he acted responsibly and
> reasonably.." ..and if he was not such a bad ol' man agssing his people. How
> bad can some people be? And that attack on Kuwait? I mean, really. Is oil
> all he cares for? Doesn't he se the beazty of living in peace and seeking
> other goals in life apart from money and power? Bla-bla. This is ridicilous.
>
> Again. He is not some Western politician goddammit! And it was CIA who
> trained him, who put him there were he is and gave him chemical and bio
> weapon programmes to oppose Iranians (CIA was apparently very mad on the
> Iranians who made a revolution).
A scumbag is a scumbag, no matter how it got that way. His behavior is
not acceptable. Period.
> > I must profess my confusion of some peoples continued opposition to all of
> > this. NO ONE wants war. That is why it is so hotly debated.
> > SYRIA voted for the UN resolution. That statement right there should say
> it
> > all!
>
> Face the facts that Saddam's war programmes are now non-existing..
You know this _how_? Perhaps he has let you personally look inside the
facilities that he closed to the UN inspectors? If in fact he has no
"war programmes" then he should have no objection to the UN inspectors
confirming that, now, should he?
> He is in
> deep shit.
Not nearly as deep as he was in with the US Army sitting on his
doorstep.
> He knows he's very close to be brought down and will do anything
> to avoid it.
He was closer to being brought down at the end of Desert Storm and it
doesn't seem to have altered his behavior one iota.
> If you believe war against Iraq is a war against terrorism, you
> are wrong.
Sez you. Prove it.
> It is just a charade. I don't have anything against putting him
> down, but I'm opposing the meaning you give it to it. It's all about Iraq's
> oil.
Uh huh. The UN sanctions are what is making Iraq's oil inaccessible,
not Saddam. If it was "all about Iraq's oil" then the simple solution
would be to drop the sanctions and make Saddam happy.
> Do you think that things will change rapidly when he is down?
Will they change rapidly? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will they stop getting
worse? Very likely.
> For the
> better of those people? Do not be mistaken. The economy is destroyed and all
> that will be changed is the control over oil and free supply of humanitarian
> aid.
The economy in Europe was destroyed at the end of WWII. The Iraqis
would love to be as poor as the Germans are today.
> Those people will have a lot of trouble organising the country again,
> after living for so long under despotism.
This is called "nation building" and it is a dirty job but somebody has
to do it.
> So, the Saddam's regime is
> controlling it so far, one way or another. The new guy won't be much
> different. He will steal, too, but will be much more subtle.
So you know with certainty who the "new guy" will be and that the new
government will in fact be simply another dictatorship?
> And don't give that Syrian vote any meaning. What is that worth? Also
> another country in problems trying to suck up for some good points. The days
> when they were helping the terrorists and opposing the US were the days they
> were supported by USSR. And that is gone and they have to live off
> something, don't they?
What point do you believe you are making?
Vern Pellerin
>Actually the Chechen Terrorists killed one hostage (accidentially -
>the were aiming for somebody who decided to make a run for it and
>missed).
Oh my God, you're blaming Russia! You're actually blaming Russia. Phil, you
MUST be an extremist psycho muslim freak. There's no way anybody except a
psycho muslim freak would blame Russia, and believe that the terrorists are
the GOOD GUYS who only ACCIDENTALLY killed someone. Pffffft. Yea, right.
Vern Pellerin
>Iran: There is a strong movement in Iran to be more pro-west. Yes they are
>a problem, but they also have such a strong movement that any action on our
>part, publically, could crush that movement. Their PM is actually pro-west.
>Let them work it out themselves. The Religious Fundamentalists there are
>going to suffer a great defeat from within.
Good point about Iran. The hardliners are the psycho-freak nutcases that have
all the control right now, but the majority of the people are relatively young
people who are more open minded and want relations with the West, it's just
the hardline freaks that are preventing it, and cracking down harder and
harder on anyone and anything that is pro-West. But the clock is ticking on
their extremist views. Sooner or later, they will implode.
PAPADOC
request but one can always hope.
The Chechens are Fanatic Islamic fundamentalists...all the women were
wired up with explosives, and they were under no ilusions about what
was gonna happen if the Russians got to them....So had the Russians
not attacked the TowelHeadedOnes would have blown up the theatre and
killed everyone including themselves up
PAPA DOC
>The other 150+ were either asphixiated by the gas used by the
>anti-terrorist police in an attempt to subdue the Chechens or died as
>a result of the effects of the gas. Some survivors subsequently died
>in hospital since the authorities withheld information as to the
>nature of the gas and the Doctors were working blind -it turned out to
>be a narcotic, so the standard treatment for heroin overdose worked
>quite well.
>
>Phil Young
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Vern Pellerin
>> He's in charge and he'll do
>> anything to stay on the power (what will he do otherwise? work on an oil
>> platform?)..
>
>Take his millions and shack up with a houseful of hookers in Bangkok?
I got a better idea. He's got 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven. Funny
how heaven is a whorehouse with inexperienced hookers.
Phil Young
Bad choice of words on my part - the Chechens *intended* to kill the
guy who was running for it - I don't know what happened to him in the
end, maybe they got him as well.
They shot at him and missed, killing another hostage who was
presumably in the line of fire.
The Spetnatz gassed the rest.
Clear now ??
Cheers,
The only Athesist 'extremist psycho muslim freak' know to science
Phil Young
wrote:
>Please dont be a stupid motherfucker..I know this is a hopeless
>request but one can always hope.
>
>The Chechens are Fanatic Islamic fundamentalists...all the women were
>wired up with explosives, and they were under no ilusions about what
>was gonna happen if the Russians got to them....So had the Russians
>not attacked the TowelHeadedOnes would have blown up the theatre and
>killed everyone including themselves up
>
>PAPA DOC
>
<sigh>
Still working on those people skills eh ?
btw do you think it would be possible for the US to lend us a few
Predators c/w missiles ?? I'm sure we could find a good home for
them. Gerry Adams home, Micheal McGuinesses home and so on....
I do enjoy our little chats,
Cheers,
Phil Young
Dusty Rhodes
of Iran was pro-west and started the movement. THere is a long way to go,
but the Iranian people are taking care of it themselves. There will be
bumps in the road for sure, but it is already happening and faster then
anyone expected. I am hopeful that this implosion will turn the focus of
the Middle Eastern people to what the radical ismlists are really doing.
The major thing that bothers me is how many of these countries are run by
dictators who balme ALL their problems on the big target of the world, the
US. When it is they who support the radical fundamentalist who use poverty,
disinformation, and religion as a weapon to stay in power. Iran mastered
this and was really the start of all of this. It will be satisfying when
they are the start of the decline of it.
Dusty Rhodes
"Vern Pellerin" <vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:brez9.80282$X9.26...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
people.
1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
themselves up at an appropiate time.
PAPA DOC
Phil Young
<pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I see you dont address the fact that the Chechens were Islamic Crazies
>who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
>people.
>
That's right, it's irrelvant to my post, which corrected Verns
original assertion that the 150+ hostages who died killed by the
Chechens, whereas they were gassed by the Russian authorities. I made
and make no comment about blame, I was deliberately restricting myself
to matters I know to be fact.
>1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
>their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
>
My understanding is that the women were in charge of exploding the
bombs - and were forbidden to take any actions without explicit orders
form the men. Amazingly, the men were all packed into one room
watching themselves on the TV news - no one said thery were bright -
knowing this from surveillance the Russians (who had penetrated the
building via the sewers the previous night) attacked at that point,
knowing that the women wouldn't (probably) explode the bombs.
>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>
Well I'm not psychic so I don't know that.
You forgot to call me a motherfucker this time btw.
>PAPA DOC
>
Cheers,
Phil Young
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
No motherfucking appeaser the Chechens killed those hostages. Had they
not taken the Theatre over the Russians wouldnt have been forced to
try and save the hostages. What a fucking idiot you are....
>That's right, it's irrelvant to my post, which corrected Verns
>original assertion that the 150+ hostages who died killed by the
>Chechens, whereas they were gassed by the Russian authorities. I made
>and make no comment about blame, I was deliberately restricting myself
>to matters I know to be fact.
>
>>1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
>>their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
>>
>
>My understanding is that the women were in charge of exploding the
>bombs -
You dont show a lot of ability to understand try and stick to facts.
PAPA DOC
Vern Pellerin
>I see you dont address the fact that the Chechens were Islamic Crazies
>who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
>people.
>
>1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
>their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
>
>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>
>PAPA DOC
Yep, the Russians saved the majority of the hostages, and he blames the
Russians instead of the terrorists! Obviously Phil would only be happy if
ALL the hostages were killed by terrorists.
Vern Pellerin
>>I see you dont address the fact that the Chechens were Islamic Crazies
>>who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
>>people.
>>
>That's right, it's irrelvant to my post, which corrected Verns
>original assertion that the 150+ hostages who died killed by the
>Chechens, whereas they were gassed by the Russian authorities. I made
>and make no comment about blame, I was deliberately restricting myself
>to matters I know to be fact.
I NEVER EVER said that all the hostages were directly killed by the
terrorists. However, all the hostages WERE CLEARLY in-directly killed by the
terrorists. How, you may ask? SIMPLE - Would Russia have gassed the theatre
if it wasn't filled with bomb carrying freaks? YES or NO? Answer that
question you terrorist lovin' freak. The answer is NO. Therefore, every
single hostage was killed by the actions of terrorists. Therefore, the
terrorists are fully 100% responsible for the death of every single hostage.
The world would be a completely lawless place if everyone listened to
freaks who blame police for crime, and pretend that if the world just
eliminated all the police, crime would magically dissapear.
One final note - you also make it sound like Russia gassed the hostages with
the express purpose of killing the hostages. Bullsh!#. True, the
Russians screwed up by not telling doctors what gas they used. Russians are
very secretive, and don't like to publicly admit mistakes, and that cost them
lives. However, throughout your constant hatred of anyone and everyone who
fights terrorism, it's clear that you love terrorism. Perhaps you're a
terrorist yourself. At this point, it wouldn't surprize me at all. At the
very least, you must be an extremist muslim who sympathyzes with terrorists.
Vern Pellerin
>I think that implosion has already started. Rafsijani (SP), who was the PM
>of Iran was pro-west and started the movement. THere is a long way to go,
>but the Iranian people are taking care of it themselves. There will be
>bumps in the road for sure, but it is already happening and faster then
>anyone expected. I am hopeful that this implosion will turn the focus of
>the Middle Eastern people to what the radical ismlists are really doing.
>
>The major thing that bothers me is how many of these countries are run by
>dictators who balme ALL their problems on the big target of the world, the
>US. When it is they who support the radical fundamentalist who use poverty,
>disinformation, and religion as a weapon to stay in power. Iran mastered
>this and was really the start of all of this. It will be satisfying when
>they are the start of the decline of it.
>
>Dusty Rhodes
On the money.
Vern Pellerin
><pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I see you dont address the fact that the Chechens were Islamic Crazies
>>who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
>>people.
>>
>That's right, it's irrelvant to my post, which corrected Verns
>original assertion that the 150+ hostages who died killed by the
>Chechens, whereas they were gassed by the Russian authorities. I made
>and make no comment about blame, I was deliberately restricting myself
>to matters I know to be fact.
>
>>1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
>>their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
>>
>
>My understanding is that the women were in charge of exploding the
Replace the word "understanding" with "bias in favor of terrorism".
>bombs - and were forbidden to take any actions without explicit orders
>form the men. Amazingly, the men were all packed into one room
>watching themselves on the TV news - no one said thery were bright -
>knowing this from surveillance the Russians (who had penetrated the
>building via the sewers the previous night) attacked at that point,
>knowing that the women wouldn't (probably) explode the bombs.
>
>>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>>
>
>Well I'm not psychic so I don't know that.
But you ARE psychic enough to know that the women could never have blown
themselves up without permission from the men, even if the women saw the
building being stormed by Russians???
You may not truely be psychic, but you're VERY psychotic.
>You forgot to call me a motherfucker this time btw.
That's ok, it doesn't need to be said everytime. Clearly everyone already
knows your a terrorist lovin' motherfucker.
J. Clarke
@flarenchaffsan.rr.com says...
I remember one kid of whom that government made an enemy. I was taking
a couple of classes around then and he was in one of them. A couple of
times he got started on the revolution in Iran and what a wonderful
thing it was. One day I came upon him in the library. He was just
sitting there looking off into space. I asked him what was wrong.
Turns out that his parents were too Westernized for the fundies and had
been arrested. He didn't have much nice to say about the revolution
after that. We were never close and I never saw him after that
semester, but if his story is typical the fundies are their own worst
enemy.
J. Clarke
@flarenchaffsan.rr.com says...
Yeah, what _is_ this thing they have about virgins anyway?
Phil Young
well done, got it in this time, so to speak
>>>PAPA DOC
>>>
I refer you to my original post.
Thanks for the sig file, I've never bothered with one before, I hope
this works ....
Cheers,
Phil Young
--
"Im the Fucking President for Life of the Assholes of the Universe"
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand, c.s.i.p.g.f-s, 7/11/02
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>
>I NEVER EVER said that all the hostages were directly killed by the
>terrorists.
You said "so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of
hostages". They killed one hostage. It's that simple.
>However, all the hostages WERE CLEARLY in-directly killed by the
>terrorists. How, you may ask? SIMPLE - Would Russia have gassed the theatre
>if it wasn't filled with bomb carrying freaks? YES or NO? Answer that
>question you terrorist lovin' freak. The answer is NO. Therefore, every
>single hostage was killed by the actions of terrorists. Therefore, the
>terrorists are fully 100% responsible for the death of every single hostage.
>
Probably - they were however killed by gas administered by the Russian
Authorities, which was my point.
>The world would be a completely lawless place if everyone listened to
>freaks who blame police for crime, and pretend that if the world just
>eliminated all the police, crime would magically dissapear.
>
>One final note - you also make it sound like Russia gassed the hostages with
>the express purpose of killing the hostages. Bullsh!#.
No I didn't.
>True, the
>Russians screwed up by not telling doctors what gas they used. Russians are
>very secretive, and don't like to publicly admit mistakes, and that cost them
>lives. However, throughout your constant hatred of anyone and everyone who
>fights terrorism, it's clear that you love terrorism. Perhaps you're a
>terrorist yourself. At this point, it wouldn't surprize me at all. At the
>very least, you must be an extremist muslim who sympathyzes with terrorists.
<sigh>
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>>
>>>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>>>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>>>
>>
>>Well I'm not psychic so I don't know that.
>
>But you ARE psychic enough to know that the women could never have blown
>themselves up without permission from the men, even if the women saw the
>building being stormed by Russians???
>
Notice the clever use of the word 'probably'. Is English your first
language ?
>You may not truely be psychic, but you're VERY psychotic.
>
>
>>You forgot to call me a motherfucker this time btw.
>
>That's ok, it doesn't need to be said everytime. Clearly everyone already
>knows your a terrorist lovin' motherfucker.
What, the entire population of the world - Cripes, I'm going to get
some funny looks at work tomorrow.
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>In article <qgvqsug00b23pqim5...@4ax.com>, Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand <pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I see you dont address the fact that the Chechens were Islamic Crazies
>>who wanted to die therefor the Russians actually saved a bunch of
>>people.
>>
>>1. Had they gone in without gas the Chechens would have detonated
>>their explosives which were clearly arrayed around the hostages.
>>
>>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>>
>>PAPA DOC
>
>Yep, the Russians saved the majority of the hostages, and he blames the
>Russians instead of the terrorists!
Did not !
Reading comprehension is your friend.
>Obviously Phil would only be happy if
>ALL the hostages were killed by terrorists.
Cheers,
Confidential
I think he will screw up and cause the US to attack him. Look at his
record. He just doesn't understand that Bush will attack. He didn't think
that Bush Sr. would care if he took over Kuwait. Sadam has a history of
guessing wrong. He will push this too far and Bush jr is tired of giving
him 18 chances to comply with the terms of the end of the Gulf War. Besides
the USA need the oil.
This is not about nukes mate. This is about the world running out of oil in
a few more years and the USA's need to have the oil in Iraq.
Half the know oil reserves will be depleted by the year 2010 or 2020. But
that time the cost of oil will have gone up so high that the USA would not
be able to afford to keep it's economy running at the rate that it is today.
We can't have economic growth without cheap oil.
"Dusty Rhodes" <james...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:usnrda8...@corp.supernews.com...
> Congress passed a resolution to approve Military force with or without the
> USELESS UN.
>
> Republicans are now the HMFIC.
>
> President Bush has pushed for both resolutions and has ordered troops to
> staging area's.
>
> Even Money says Saddam gives in BIG TIME. He'll be given one fuck up, and
> then WE ARE GOING TO WAR!
>
> Now for you people who think I want war, think again. I have been there
and
> don't ever wish to see another person put in harms way, of any
nationality,
> race, religion or other. But I also don't ever wish to see a small nuke,
or
> a bio or chem attack in anyones country. I also don't wish for a Madman
to
> ever be in control of the worlds petroleum resources.
>
> My bet is that he pushes the resolution right to it's limit, but gives in
> completely.
>
> Dusty Rhodes
>
>
Maddog
> My bet is that he pushes the resolution right to it's limit, but gives in
> completely.
>
> Dusty Rhodes
>
>
I'll take that bet! Saddam's not going to roll over and die and he's not
going to give up his WMD (assuming he even has any - which I doubt).
He's got nothing to gain by giving in and everything to lose.
If he's smart he'll negate the west's technological, economic and
weapons superiority and take the battle into the cities. Urban warfare
is not nice - it's freaking deadly, slow and costly (does the word
Stalingrad ring a bell - it could be that all over again). What good
would our airpower be then (unless we were willing to accept thousands
upon thousands of civilian casualties - which I doubt we are and
wouldn't be smart to use on cities anyway. WWII proved bombing civilians
just strengthens their resolve to fight on - Hiroshima and Nagasaki
being the exception to that and figure the odds of us just simplifying
the whole exercise and nuking Baghdad out of existence). What good will
our almost unbeatable tanks be in a city? Like I said if Saddam is smart
he'll pull his forces into the cities and force a street to street house
to house fight to root him out and topple his regime.
We'd probably win but at a very, very high cost and that might very well
spell the end of the Bush presidency (because as much as I hate to say
it the US just doesn't have the stomach for a war where 30 or 40
thousand casualties result).
Maddog
> Is being somewhat certain an acceptable level of certainty? Additionally, this
> isnt simply about nuclear weapons. Its about a flagrant disregard for the terms
> of surrender, for 11 years, and a propensity to do unpredictable, and evil
> things. And a willingness to treat civilians like serfs.
Which is exactly why *terms* of surrender just leads to problems.
Winning means winning! The loser doesn't get a vote - if he does you're
just delaying for a while until he decides he really didn't lose and
tries again. Unconditional surrender - the only way to fly.
>
> I also dont agree that most analysts agree that Iraq does not have nuclear
> weapons. Most analysts agree that they are not certain about this.
And this is reason enough to go to war? Please...
>>Iraq, even if its a dictatorship killing its own people, is NOT the worlds
>>nest
>>for terrorists.
>
>
> Its not that simple Lars. Iraq represents a state of governance, an
> unwillingness to give the people the rights they deserve, throughout the ME.
You mean like for say China (who's just as bad as Iraq and does have
WMD)? I don't hear anyone screaming for us to go to war with China. Gee
I wonder why?
>>Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
>>conventional war.
Absolutely a true statement. To defeat terrorism you must eliminate the
causes for which terrorists fight. Eliminate those and the people the
terrorists speak for will shut them down.
Until then you fight them with special forces, with infiltration, with
assasination. You must fight them using their rules because conventional
just will not work.
> Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in the
> islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
> Rejecting the rights of individuals.
If fundamental Islamists wish to live 500 years in the past then let 'em
as long as a few of them retain the smarts to keep shipping the oil
they control to the west. Otherwise...
>
>>They are fanatics that feed on destruction and war and the only way to fight
>>them is to fight ignorance, to enlighten people, and to make sure noone gets
>>their lives destoyed by war.
>
> Yes, to enlighten people by compelling a form of governance which respects the
> rights of citizens, offeres greater opportunities, doesnt gas them, doesnt
> attack its neighbors, doesnt harbor terrorist, doesnt overtly express ill will
> towards the west, and, in general behaves as a civilized nation does.
>
> We did this in Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan now have the second, and
> third largest economies, respctively, in the world. And a higher standard of
> living than nearly anyone else, as a result of these actions.
>
> Iraqi people will benefit from our actions. Wait, watch, see, and learn.
>
> DrOK
>
The Marshall plan worked in Germany and Japan primarily because they
were secular states where religion and government were essentially
seperate non mingling entities. Germany was a western culture and
embraced democracy and capitalism. Japan though oriental had a cultural
beant that was very practical and recognized fairly quickly the benefits
of democracy and capitalism (especially the women).
Islamic nations are essentially theocracies (even those that are
dictatorships like Iraq and Syria and Saudi - use the religion to
control their populace). Cracking the religious nut is much more
difficult than a secular nut.
The Marshall plan or something similar will IMO not work in the
mid-east. No one will admit it and I'll be excoriated for saying it but
the only way to end the problem in the mid-east is to eliminate Islam.
And that's not going to happen and probably shouldn't.
So what's the solution? Beats me - Glad I'm not in charge.
Maddog
>
> I agree, but that still doesnt give USA the right to go to war against
> Iraq..
What a silly statement. Any nation pretty much has the right to do what
ever it wants to. If other nations don't like it they can try to stop
it. Gee - I think that's called - uhhhh - WAR?
The winner of the war then gets to write the history and decide what's
right. Imagine that - the winner decides.
> Why Iraq... why not Turkey... Greece... Spain.... Ireland.... they all have
> large terrorist fractions ?
Indeed - why not?
>>>Terrorists doesnt have a nationality, and they cant be fought in a
>>>conventional war.
>>
>>Thats obviuos. Does this statement address the need to compel change in
>
> the
>
>>islamic states? This is about islam rejecting modernization, at its core.
>>Rejecting the rights of individuals.
>
> This is where you go wrong.
> Islam is NOT the root of terrorism, and Iraq for that matter, is not the
> cradle for Islam.
[cough - hack - BULLSHIT!]
>
> The middle-east, and the generations of palestinians and arabs who have seen
> their children and / or parent shot in refugee camps, driven over by tanks,
> shot and mutelated without any chance to fight back.... thats where the
> cradle of international terrorism lies...
> They are a statesless people with noone listening to them.. thats where
> terrorists are born.... NOT in Iraq, even if they give housing to some of
> them.
>
> Bimo
If they'd live like civilized people instead of violent barbarians maybe
some state would take them in. Jordan - a moslem state - wouldn't even
take the Palestinians in. If they behaved they could live quite well in
Israel, join in the political processes there (Israel is after all a
democracy) and maybe exercise an amount of political power consistent
with their proportion of population. But no - they have to have it all
or nothing - they are treated by the Israelis as they deserve to be treated.
Ivan Jozic
>
> Only for small children. There are circumstances under
I'm sorry.. In the writing I ommited the part about the usual behaviour of a
fuckin' dictator (I had Hitler in mind and his retribution plans;
unfortunatelly some of them came true - V-1/V-2, but some didn't - like the
devastation of Paris he ordered)..
Ivan Jozic
1990. In the past ten years the country is destroyed (the economy and stuff)
so bringing him down (and I do point out that he should be brought down)
won't do as much good to the country as it is advertised. I mean, reading
the papers you get the feeling that when he's brought down, people of Iraq
may ease up. Like hell. Where will they work? Money from oil? Do you really
think the people get it? In the more developed oil countries you have the
rich minority and the poor majority.. Those sheiks get so much money from
the oil trade that they don't know what to do with it (like building hockey
domes) and they don't have to do shit, while the ordinary citizens don't get
much from all that oil being sold.. That's not fair.
The other thing I was trying to point out was that you're discussing his
behaviour as if he was a sane person and this whole thing was happening in
some Western democracy.. This is the Middle East and a dictator so you can't
expect such behaviour. You have to put him in that context..
The third thing was that it won't change much against terrorism (except for
his money support, but hell there are numerous others rich fundamentalist
who like the idea of some kind of "retribution" against the US and allies)..
Ivan Jozic
anything?
> If this is a US controlled group, why in hell would we allow Red China to
> have Veto rights over our decisions. This is a gathering of nations and
is
> intended to draw the nations together to make important decisions about
the
> world so no one country can wield all that power.
Yes I know all that squat and that's what it's supposed to be like. China is
a big player because of it's manpower. Do you know how big a market that is?
It's all just business.. Russia can pretend to be independent in their
decissions but they depend on foreign (read: US) aid so..
I bet if the UN doesn't approve the attack (and I don't see that happening)
and Bush decides he needs it he will do it (of course it will be masked with
some resolutions and stuff)..
>There are seveal times it
> has dropped the ball. Luckily the US has picked it up. Un-luckily we
have
> picked up the ball a few times too.
So the US has the right to pick up the ball when the UN drops it.. I thought
you just said otherwise..
> Who? The World sir. And they did. Yes we had the vast majority of troops
> involved, because we have the most powerful, well equipped, and trained
> military in the world. Someone has to lead, and that is what the US does.
>
What world? Those pity European forces amounted to what in Desert Storm? Few
Tornado squadrons for bombing the airways, few SAS units for actions in the
back and a contingent of men to handle the prisoners..
US tanks did all the hard work supported by Apaches, A-10s, F-111s, B-52s,
F-117, F-16s, F-15s, carrier F-14s and F/A-18s.. Except for those Tornados
and Jaguars I didn't spot many non-US aircraft. Of course, all the refueling
was made by US aircraft since Europe lacks them.. And those Tornados that
did participate did not have TIALDs then so they could just be used for
delivering clusters and drag bombs (unless Buccaneers did the laser
designations) and thus suffered those losses that they did. The incompetent
Italian Air Force Tornados dropped a few bombs and that was it. Some world,
ain't it?
And if we observe the bombing of Serbia, it's even worse. US did 95% of
refueling, all the jamming, the AWACS support, the escort (who brought down
those few MIGs that got up? F-15s) only them had GPS guided bombs (those few
European planes that were trying to drop laser bombs - and US were lasing
them - were most of the time returning to base with ordnance (or they
dropped it in Adriatic before landing) because of bad weather conditions).
European planes lacked air to ground capabilities and stand-off weapons. It
all ended with Europeans upgrading some of their aircraft to carry LGBs and
some communication upgrades. Ridiculous. If it was up to Europeans only they
wouldn't do shit (or would face great losses)..
> It's all about him living up to an agreement he signed and refuses to
abide
> by. Oil is a weapon and a means for him to be rich and build palace after
> grand palace. It is a way of rebuiolding his military force, instead of
> feeding and caring for his people, like the UN mandates states he is
> supposed to do. Free Iraq from Sadaam and free Iraq oil for open sales on
> the world market. How much better do you think the Iraqi's will be then?
>
This is all true and I didn't oppose it.
> Syria has chosen, for the most part to be a player and supporter of the
> international community. And you blame them for that? Would you rather
> have them go back to their old ways (admittedly they still have some
issue's
> that need to be addressed)?
Well, I assure you that they are doing it because they lack USSR support.
What kind of a player that is? Old weapons, no economy.. Some player that
is.. If it was like in the old days they'd be rattling with their weapons
against Israel, of coruse (and might I add almost rightfully) and would
support anything against US. But the lack of money would make them as kind
as sheep..
I like it this way, I'm just trying to say that it isn't like - oh, they are
our friends now. They support us and like us. You see, the radical islam
being in force there is a strange thing. It makes people to go around
education because they don't want the people to know what's going on and to
think, but they want to be able to control them easily (US is the Satan,
Alah is calling you to kill his enemies, etc)
Vern Pellerin
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:26:28 GMT, vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern
>Pellerin) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I NEVER EVER said that all the hostages were directly killed by the
>>terrorists.
>
>You said "so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of
>hostages". They killed one hostage. It's that simple.
How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
Therefore, the terrorists are responsible for EVERY single death,
period. You are siding with the terrorists.
>Probably - they were however killed by gas administered by the Russian
>Authorities, which was my point.
How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
Clearly you love terrorism and blame the Russians instead of the terrorists.
>>One final note - you also make it sound like Russia gassed the hostages with
>>the express purpose of killing the hostages. Bullsh!#.
>
>No I didn't.
Yes, you did. You repeatedly blame Russia instead of the terrorists.
Vern Pellerin
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:41:05 GMT, vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern
>Pellerin) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>2. Had the Russians not gone in the Chechens would have merely blown
>>>>themselves up at an appropiate time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well I'm not psychic so I don't know that.
>>
>>But you ARE psychic enough to know that the women could never have blown
>>themselves up without permission from the men, even if the women saw the
>>building being stormed by Russians???
>>
>Notice the clever use of the word 'probably'. Is English your first
>language ?
Is Arabic yours???
PAPADOC
200 casualties...Saddam and his armies dont even have wet dreams as
good as our Armed Services are....we forgot stuff 20 years ago that he
wont ever figure out...none of his people are motivated to win....his
weapons will break when they are operated by someone who actually
knows how and when there is actually someone there to operate it.
PAPA DOC
>We'd probably win but at a very, very high cost and that might very well
>spell the end of the Bush presidency (because as much as I hate to say
>it the US just doesn't have the stomach for a war where 30 or 40
>thousand casualties result).
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001
www.papadoc.net
Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the
10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in
more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."
Dusty Rhodes
to a fine edge. Sadaams Army, may not even show up. We should train like
they will, but Maddog sounds like the media. In every conflict we get into,
the media screams about thousands of casualties, both military and civilian.
That doesn't happen. Our capabilities to fight this sort of war are nothing
short of amazing.
Dusty Rhodes
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:hbgusuoibk84mv309...@4ax.com...
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>>
>>You said "so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of
>>hostages". They killed one hostage. It's that simple.
>
>How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
>Therefore, the terrorists are responsible for EVERY single death,
>period. You are siding with the terrorists.
>
Irrelevant to your original point that the Chechens killed lots of
hostages. Which was incorrect. Can you actually read English ?
>>Probably - they were however killed by gas administered by the Russian
>>Authorities, which was my point.
>
>How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
>Clearly you love terrorism and blame the Russians instead of the terrorists.
>
Irrelevant to my point, please address that rather than what the
voices are letting you. You might also like to take the time to quote
where I have expressed any love for terrorists. You know, form what
I actually wrote, not what your evidently deranged brain read.
>>>One final note - you also make it sound like Russia gassed the hostages with
>>>the express purpose of killing the hostages. Bullsh!#.
>>
>>No I didn't.
>
>Yes, you did. You repeatedly blame Russia instead of the terrorists.
>
Please provide a quote, from this thread (or any others for that
matter), which I actually wrote to substantiate this. Not something
that Mr. Flibble, the King of the Potato people told you.
I am astonished by you inability to read what is on the damn screeen
and respond to that.
Phil Young
Phil Young
Pellerin) wrote:
>>>
>>Notice the clever use of the word 'probably'. Is English your first
>>language ?
>
>Is Arabic yours???
Nyet. Although I do use arabic numerals. Myabe you should go back to
roman numerals, to do otherwise would be to support terrorists
usually.
For the XXIIth time, try reading the damn posts and responding to
them.
Phil Young
Ivan Jozic
> going to give up his WMD (assuming he even has any - which I doubt).
> He's got nothing to gain by giving in and everything to lose.
>
After thinking, I agree with the most.. Saddam will try to run away. You
see, if he was too stupid to have any faith in the support of the people of
Iraq (most of all are just afraid of him of course) he would not have
founded his own Guard part of the military which gets the best weapons,
status, salary etc. So when US troops come close to his quarters he can only
hope they would buy him some time to flee.. I hope there won't be any
retribution (missile attacks against neighbours, burning down the oil fields
and such)..
Samsung
body count. The time frame sounds about right, but I doubt very highly in a
'real' war where they are going to be going door to door sorta speak that
the deaths will be that low.
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:hbgusuoibk84mv309...@4ax.com...
Maddog
> Battle over in 2 months of fighting....maybe less. Possibly as high as
> 200 casualties...Saddam and his armies dont even have wet dreams as
> good as our Armed Services are....we forgot stuff 20 years ago that he
> wont ever figure out...none of his people are motivated to win....his
> weapons will break when they are operated by someone who actually
> knows how and when there is actually someone there to operate it.
>
> PAPA DOC
>
I honestly hope you're right PD but seriously doubt it. You are speaking
from your heart not your head. The Iraqis I suspect are just as
patriotic and love their country as much as you do. They may not like
Saddam but they hate us more.
The Iraqi Army fell apart in the Gulf War because the Iraqi army had the
shit bombed out of it for over a month. The men left on the front lines
were addle brained idiots after that and all their officers had bagged
ass weeks earlier. They were left with no morale and no leadership.
They'd have surrendered to a boyscout troop with pocket knives after that.
You are right in your contention that "we forgot stuff 20 years ago that
he wont ever figure out" but that applies to conventional warfare on the
ground and in the air. It most certainly doesn't apply to urban warfare.
The only advantage we'd have in that would be one of superior
communications (which is indeed a good advantage to have). Add to that
the US Army hasn't had to fight house to house, street to street since
Vietnam and you just compound the problem.
2 Months? Maybe. 200 casualties - you're living in a world with pink
skies and rose colored water if you really believe that.
PAPADOC
>I honestly hope you're right PD but seriously doubt it. You are speaking
>from your heart not your head. The Iraqis I suspect are just as
>patriotic and love their country as much as you do. They may not like
>Saddam but they hate us more.
>
>You are right in your contention that "we forgot stuff 20 years ago that
>he wont ever figure out" but that applies to conventional warfare on the
>ground and in the air. It most certainly doesn't apply to urban warfare.
>The only advantage we'd have in that would be one of superior
>communications (which is indeed a good advantage to have). Add to that
>the US Army hasn't had to fight house to house, street to street since
>Vietnam and you just compound the problem.
The US Armed services has demonstrated over and over again that they
far exceed any demand put on them. The most recent City Ambush was in
Somalia and our forces fought their way out of what would have been a
disaster for any other armed service in the world save perhaps the
British. Thousands of Somalis tried to ambush our soldiers and were
unsuccessful. It was even worse than at Little Big Horn but here our
superior discipline and training defeated them.
>2 Months? Maybe. 200 casualties - you're living in a world with pink
>skies and rose colored water if you really believe that.
My record on predicting the success of the US Armed Services extends
back 12 years. I am confident that my research will hold up.
Western armies are pretty much undefeatable...and US Armies are the
best of the west.
Here is what Victor Davis Hanson visiting Historian to the US Navy has
to say at http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson110601.shtml
I would not wish to fight the United States — either militarily,
politically, or culturally. For every threat, our history teaches us
that Americans offer not just a rejoinder, but the specter of a
devastating answer of a magnitude almost inconceivable to those now
chanting and threatening in the streets of the Middle East. Do they
have any idea of what sort of dangerous people we really are? Do they
understand the history of the names of those ships now off their
coasts, like the USS Peleliu or Enterprise, or the pedigree of the
82nd or 101st Airborne?
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
No it is NOT irrelevent to the post it just exposes the irrelevancy of
your position so forthrightly that you have no response.
>Irrelevant to your original point that the Chechens killed lots of
>hostages. Which was incorrect. Can you actually read English ?
>I am astonished by you inability to read what is on the damn screeen
>and respond to that.
>Phil Young
Indeed the Chechens killed those people....
No.T...@here.com
wrote:
snipped a bit here...
}Here is what Victor Davis Hanson visiting Historian to the US Navy has
}to say at http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson110601.shtml
}
}I would not wish to fight the United States — either militarily,
}politically, or culturally. For every threat, our history teaches us
}that Americans offer not just a rejoinder, but the specter of a
}devastating answer of a magnitude almost inconceivable to those now
}chanting and threatening in the streets of the Middle East. Do they
}have any idea of what sort of dangerous people we really are? Do they
}understand the history of the names of those ships now off their
}coasts, like the USS Peleliu or Enterprise, or the pedigree of the
}82nd or 101st Airborne?
The sad thing is many Americans don't have a clue as to their history
(both those ships mentioned and their own US history, much less the
world's...) or the caliber of our troops, especially those mentioned...
Avatar
Maddog
Iraq and kick the living shit out of 'em. Hell if it were up to me I'd
just nuke the SOB's and tell any other nation that had the affrontery to
complain - "You want some?". We need to teach the fucking ARABS that
there are just some folks you can't screw with and we are it. "Get used
to it ragheads - because we ain't going away".
But hearts aren't often right and my head says we have neither the legal
nor moral right to invade Iraq. They are not now a direct threat to the
US and it's doubtful they ever will be. If anyone in the US government
or the world for that matter had real hard evidence that Iraq had WMD's
now or was working on making them and the delivery systems necessary to
threaten the US then they'd have produced it - but no one has because
that evidence simply doesnt' exist. The weapons inspection teams going
in there now are little more than smoke and mirrors to appease the UN.
Bush wants a war and as much as I like the guy as a man and respect him
as a president I think on this issue he is wrong.
If Bush were to say "Screw all this WMD shit, I just wanna take over
Iraq and put in a friendly government so we can start shipping out their
oil and have prices go down", or "we need stability in the Middle East
and to convince the Islamists we mean business so we're gonna take out
the top ME dog to provide it", well I'd support that. But all this crap
about WMD's and threats to the US etc, etc is just that CRAP! It's
freaking politics pure and simple. It's the US getting down on it's
knees, folding back it's teeth and sucking the UN's dick. And I for one
am sick and tired of the US giving blow jobs to the assholes in the UN.
This may be the time to go into Iraq but it's all for the wrong damn
reasons. AND the reasons COUNT!
Maddog
PAPADOC
We have the testimony of former inspectors, we have the testimony of
defectors, we have journalist reports of complicity in severe attacks
on this country, we have evidence of an assasination on a former
President, there is so much damn evidence that one would have to bury
ones head in the sand to not see it.
PAPA DOC
>
>This may be the time to go into Iraq but it's all for the wrong damn
>reasons. AND the reasons COUNT!
>
>Maddog
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Vern Pellerin
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:11:30 GMT, vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern
>Pellerin) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You said "so they take over a Russian theatre and kill lots of
>>>hostages". They killed one hostage. It's that simple.
>>
>>How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
>>Therefore, the terrorists are responsible for EVERY single death,
>>period. You are siding with the terrorists.
>>
>
>Irrelevant to your original point that the Chechens killed lots of
>hostages. Which was incorrect. Can you actually read English ?
Irrelevent, since no one would have died at all if the freak terrorists
wouldn't have taken over the theatre and rigged it with a million bombs. Can
you stop reading Muslim extremist propaganda?
>>>Probably - they were however killed by gas administered by the Russian
>>>Authorities, which was my point.
>>
>>How many would have died if the terrorists NEVER took over the theatre?
>>Clearly you love terrorism and blame the Russians instead of the terrorists.
>>
>
>Irrelevant to my point, please address that rather than what the
>voices are letting you. You might also like to take the time to quote
>where I have expressed any love for terrorists. You know, form what
>I actually wrote, not what your evidently deranged brain read.
Irrelevant, since you love terrorism. You keep blaming Russia for the deaths,
rather than the terrorists who are 100% responsible. Therefore, you love
terrorism. It's like blaming the cop for arresting a criminal, rather than
focusing on the crime.
>>>>One final note - you also make it sound like Russia gassed the hostages with
>
>>>>the express purpose of killing the hostages. Bullsh!#.
>>>
>>>No I didn't.
>>
>>Yes, you did. You repeatedly blame Russia instead of the terrorists.
>>
>
>Please provide a quote, from this thread (or any others for that
>matter), which I actually wrote to substantiate this. Not something
>that Mr. Flibble, the King of the Potato people told you.
Potato boy, you repeatedly blame Russia for the deaths. That's proof you're
rooting for terrorism. No one would have died if the terrorists didn't take
over the place. Pull you're head out of your a$$ and blame the
psycho-Islamist freaks who constantly want to kill-kill-kill.
>I am astonished by you inability to read what is on the damn screeen
>and respond to that.
I am astonished at your ability to cheer terrorism and refusal to blame the
terrorists for anything.
Vern Pellerin
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:12:46 GMT, vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern
>Pellerin) wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>Notice the clever use of the word 'probably'. Is English your first
>>>language ?
>>
>>Is Arabic yours???
>
>Nyet. Although I do use arabic numerals. Myabe you should go back to
>roman numerals, to do otherwise would be to support terrorists
>usually.
Maybe you should go back to Bin Laden's training camp. Ooh, look out,
hellfire inbound!
>For the XXIIth time, try reading the damn posts and responding to
>them.
>
>Phil Young
For the millionth time, stop blaming the Russians for the deaths caused by
terrorists. Stop supporting terrorism.
Scharmers
> Exactly what proof are you looking for....? Detail it.
>
> We have the testimony of former inspectors, we have the testimony of
> defectors, we have journalist reports of complicity in severe attacks
> President***, there is so much damn evidence that one would have to bury
> ones head in the sand to not see it.
>
> PAPA DOC
I KNEW THOSE FUCKING IRAQI BASTARDS KILLED PRESIDENT
MCKINLEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! DEATH TO ALL BROWN
PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--scharmers
PAPADOC
coming off the top of your head or are you close to your answer yet
about when Chaff and Flare became operational in the planes in Strike
Fighters.
Now onto this subject...I hate to overload you so if its too much you
just let me know and I will lighten up on your narrow shoulders. What
evidence do you require...details please.
PAPA DOC
>I KNEW THOSE FUCKING IRAQI BASTARDS KILLED PRESIDENT
>MCKINLEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! DEATH TO ALL BROWN
>PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>--scharmers
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Dr Oddness Killtroll
PAPADOC wrote:
Hey PD! Whats sharmy got against brown people?
DrOk
PAPADOC
You know demoncrats dont really believe that Brown people are their
equals...they just liked to use them. Now that the Brown people are
waking up to the fact that the Demoncrats are no good for anyone
except themselves I believe all that latent hostility will be coming
right on up. After all look at how racist and homophobic the
Demoncrats were this last election.
PAPA DOC
>Hey PD! Whats sharmy got against brown people?
>
>DrOk
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Scharmers
> PAPADOC wrote:
>
> Hey PD! Whats sharmy got against brown people?
>
> DrOk
>
George Carlin on the Bush War
History Lesson
I'd like to talk a little about that 'war' we had in the Persian Gulf.
Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you what was
goin' on.
Naturally, you can forget all that entertaining fiction about having to
defend the model democracy those lucky Kuwaitis get to live under. And for
the moment you can also put aside the very real, periodic need Americans
have for testing their new weapons on human flesh. And also, just for the
fun of it, let's ignore George Bush Sr.'s obligation to protect the oil
interests of his family and friends. There was another, much more important,
consideration at work. Here's what really happened.
Dropping a Load for Uncle Sam.
The simple fact is that America was long overdue to drop high explosives on
helpless civilians; people who have no argument with us whatsoever. After
all, it had been awhile, and the hunger gnaws. Remember that's our
specialty: picking on countries that have marginally effective air forces.
Yugoslavia is another, more recent example.
But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about that Gulf War: it was
the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable.
And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals
displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense,
because we like war. We're a warlike people. We can't stand not to be
fucking with someone. We couldn't wait for the Cold War to end so we could
climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy
war.
And one reason we enjoy it is that we're good at it. You know why we're good
at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old,
and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty
years, So we're good at it!
And it's just as well we are, because we're not very good at anything else.
Can't build a decent car anymore. Can't make a TV set, a cell phone, or a
VCR. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can't educate our young
people. Can't get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shit
outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit outta your country!
If You're Brown, You're Goin' Down
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't
we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing
brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in
your country? Tell 'em to watch the fuck out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In
fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's
it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to
cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.
Bullshit! That's our job. That's our fuckin' job.
But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people.
And not because they're cutting in our action; we do it because they're
brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are
they? Naaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white
spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb
the English. People who really deserve it.
A Disobedient American
Now you folks might've noticed, I don't feel about that Gulf War the way we
were instructed to feel about it by the United States government. My mind
doesn't work that way. You see, I've got this real moron thing I do, it's
called 'Thinking'. And I guess I'm not a very good American, because I like
to form my own opinions; I don't just roll over when I'm told. Most
Americans roll over on command. Not me. There are certain rules I observe.
Believe You Me
My first rule: Never believe anyone in authority says. None of them.
Government, Police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them. And
neither do I believe anything I'm told by the media, who, in the case of the
Gulf War, functioned as little more than unpaid employees of the Defense
Department, and who, most of the time, operate as unofficial public
relations agency for the government and industry. I don't believe in any of
them. And I have to tell you, folks, I don't
really believe very much in my country either. I don't get all choked up
about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave
them to the symbol-minded.
I also look at war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely
as an exercise in dick-waving. That's really all it is: a lot of men
standing around in a field waving their dicks at one another. Men, insecure
about the size of their penises, choose to kill one another.
That's also what all that moron athlete bullshit is all about, and what that
macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms
represents. It's called 'dick fear.' Men are terrified that their dicks are
inadequate, and so they have to 'compete' in order to feel better about
themselves. And since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are
killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem.
You needn't be a historian or a political scientist to see the Bigger Dick
Foreign Policy Theory at work. It goes like this: 'What? They have bigger
dicks? Bomb them!' And of course, the bombs, the rockets, and the bullets
are all shaped like penises. Phallic weapons. There's an unconscious need to
project the national penis into the affairs of others. It's called 'fucking
with people'
So as far as I'm concerned, that whole thing in the Persian Gulf was nothing
more than one big dick-waving cockfight.
In this particular case, Saddam Hussein questioned the size of George Bush's
dick. And George Bush had been called a wimp for so long, he apparently felt
the need to act out his manhood fantasies by sending America's white
children to kill other people's brown children.
Clearly the worst kind of wimp.
Even his name, 'Bush', as slang, is related to the genitals without being
the genitals.
A bush is sort of a passive, secondary sex characteristic. It's even used as
a slang term for women: 'Hey, pal, how's the bush in this area?'
I can't help thinking, if this president's name had been George Boner...
well, he might have felt a little better about himself, and he wouldn't have
had to kill all those children. Too bad he couldn't locate his manhood.
Actually, when you think about it, this country has had a manhood problem
for some time. You can tell the language we use; language always gives us
away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We 'pulled out'! Not a very manly
thing to do. No. When you're fucking people, you're supposed to stay with it
and fuck them good; fuck them to death; hang in there and keep fucking them
until they're all fucking dead.
But in Vietnam what happened was by accident we left a few women and
children alive, and we haven't felt good about ourselves since.
That's why in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, 'This will not be
another Vietnam.' He actually said, 'This time we're going all the way.'
Imagine. An American president using the sexual slang of a thirteen-year-old
to describe his foreign policy.
And, of course, when it got right down to it, he didn't 'go all the way.'
Faced with going into Baghdad he punked out. No balls. Just Bush.
Instead, he applied sanctions, so he'd be sure that an extra half a million
brown children would die. And so his oil buddies could continue to fill
their pockets.
If you want to know what happened in the Persian Gulf, just remember the
first names of the two men who ran that war: Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
Dick and Colon.
Someone got fucked in the ass.
And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on, because
Dick and Colin have come back for an encore.
PAPADOC
Dear Scharmers,
I know these are rough times for liberal leftists in America as nearly
everyone has seen thru the hollowness of the arguments you always
thought so clever but still I require that you at least try and be
original. George is a comedian and a very funny one at that but lets
be real we dont listen, well ok MOST of us dont listen to Martin Sheen
as if he is the REAL President, and it follows that most of us dont
ask George Carlin for advice on how to deal with foreign
affairs...only the bankrupt left wing of the Demoncrats stoop to that
level. Rise up and be free, think for youself....
PAPA DOC
ohhh...@email.com
wrote:
> MOST of us dont listen to Martin Sheen
>as if he is the REAL President, and it follows that most of us dont
>ask George Carlin for advice on how to deal with foreign
>affairs
Or other limosine liberals that have all the money in the world and
would not know how to live with a 9-5 job their whole life but see fit
to shoot their mouth off and tell the working folks what is what
<cough> Streisand <cough> Baldwin <cough>.
> Rise up and be free, think for youself....
Well.....actually I am a hard core conservative. And thinking for
myself, I don't like the way America see's fit to put its nose in
every corner of the world as if they are the world's police man (more
like the 'Empire' from the Star Wars universe). I didn't like it when
Clinton did it, I don't like it now (although I see not problem with
temproary incursions to sovreign nations to weed out the terrorists we
are after) I see no reason for this Iraq situation other than it is a
weak nation, with no nukes, and 1/3 the proven oil reserves. A
secular population to boot, not a nation of Muslim extremists.
All these actions are going to do is play into the extremists hands.
'You want to take on the great Satan? Better get a nuke. Your
father/family was killed in the latest bombing? We a recruiting, God
be damned, this is now personal and we're going to set things right.'
Of course, as any small army knows you are not going to win in a toe
to toe fight. So you will hit and run, needle them, use guerilla
tactices, and so on.
Seems to me America would do better in spending money in getting its
industrial base up and running, getting us off the oil energy standard
(it will happen some day, oil is not a renewable resource), and
getting us away from this "warehouse nation" of products made over
seas for a nation of consumers that work more and more in the service
sector.
At times I think these Neo-Conservative types are as big a long term
danger as liberals are.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Scharmers wrote:
> Dr Oddness Killtroll <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message news:<3DD03B4B...@annex.annex>...
> > PAPADOC wrote:
> >
> > Hey PD! Whats sharmy got against brown people?
> >
> > DrOk
> >
>
> George Carlin on the Bush War
With all due respect, Scharmers,
Carlin is a comedian-social commentator. I know his views. He makes them known, regularly, on
HBO.Sometimes he is correct, and amusing. Often, he is incorrect, and not so amusing.
I do like his english language stuff, tho. I even remember the Hippy Dippy Weatherman, when it was a
new schtick.
But, is this supposed to be a compelling argument?
DrOK
<comedicallychallenged>
Maddog
>
> History Lesson
>
> I'd like to talk a little about that 'war' we had in the Persian Gulf.
> Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you what was
> goin' on.
>
[snip - a whole lot of total bullshit by an overaged hippy whose mind
is blown by too much drugs and and too many heart attacks]
Carlin is an asshole - always has been and always will be. He's pretty
funny though. I bet when he delivered the crap he spewed it got mega
laughs.
More people ought to read it after they listen to him deliver it.
Comes across totally different.
Like I said Carlin is an asshole.
Michael "Maddog" Andress
Oklahoma City
No.T...@here.com
<an...@annex.annex> wrote:
}...I even remember the Hippy Dippy Weatherman, when it was a
}new schtick.
LOL, yes I remember him then, too. He even had hair then! Did he first
do that bit on Laugh-in?
Avatar
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Maddog wrote:
Hey Maddog,
Carlin is Michael Moore with a sense of humor.
Hmmmm....
Maybe I'm being ungenerous to Carlin...
;)
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
No.T...@Here.com wrote:
I think it was on Carson, in 64 or 65 or 66. But, I wouldnt Bet My Bippy
on it!!
;)
DrOk
Vern Pellerin
100% dead wrong. Maybe it was funnier with his verbal delivery, than simply
reading it. But everything said was still completely wrong. He must be
getting despirate for new material.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Vern Pellerin wrote:
Agreed. He seems to be struggling for identity, and relevance, today. While
still maintaining his old persona. I think he is much like Michael Moore, but
with humor (although not displayed here). He (Carlin) has a rather scattershot
take on many things. Much liberal, but some, amazingly, rather conservative.
Albeit, that conservatism is not displayed here.
I think he's funny, partially becasue he evokes nostalgic memories. But I agree
about the nonsense posted. It isnt funny. Its simply misinformed. Self
indulgently so.
DrOk
chainbreaker
agree
> about the nonsense posted. It isnt funny. Its simply misinformed. Self
> indulgently so.
>
> DrOk
>
>
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good (or even bad) story . . .
chainbreaker