OT-OT- IRAQ/Bin Laden Link to Ok Bombing 1993 interesting article for those who care about those sorts of things. OT OT
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
that deposing Saddam is somehow getting away from our war on terror.
It is no such thing...it is a the logical continuation of it....and
most likely wont be the last stop.
http://chicagomag.com/news/1002true.htm
PAPA DOC
No.T...@here.com
him... ya got to wonder about a guy like this and some of the stuff that
comes out of his mouth. Maybe some of his die-hard supporters will look
at him in a different light now... then again...
Avatar
Dr Oddness Killtroll
No.T...@Here.com wrote:
Ya, he's a true peice of work. Scary thing is, millions still think his
views are sound.
I guess thats America, nowadays...
DrOk
F r e e
What he says is what the rest ( "rest") of westerners think.
And the truth? Well..... For now, i do not fear 'terrorist-alliance of evil'...
The most powerful country's president behaves like a lame sim-wargamer!
Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
Don't let a bunch of terrorists change our values and standards of life!
--
F r e e
Still perplexed why it is not possible to just send a 'spy' to kill Sadam.....!
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <pleg...@earthlink.net> escribió en el mensaje news:3d910222...@news.west.cox.net...
Lord Data
says...
Apologies for the OT on the OT-OT. I have to say that I've been
intrigued by your nick for quite a while. Is "Papa Doc" some sort of
aviation term? Surely it can't be related to the "Papa Doc" we all know?
Or is it?
Tom Cervo
>> that deposing Saddam is somehow getting away from our war on terror.
>> It is no such thing...it is a the logical continuation of it....and
>> most likely wont be the last stop.
>>
>> http://chicagomag.com/news/1002true.htm
>>
>> PAPA DOC
We're getting very close to tin-foil hat time here.
There's no doubt that saddam can be deposed, but once he is, we'll be there for
20-30 years--that's the opinion of a lot of the real experts, including James
Webb. Is this going to be another "Six Day War" that lasts 35+ years?
John Pancoast
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message
news:3D91D136...@annex.annex...
Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't any different
John
>
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
same thing and at the end he sounded as if he was starting to think it
just might be true.
The difference between great detective work and tin foil beenie people
is the quality of the evidence. Today the administration started to
attach Saddam directly to Al Queda. This is something that is very
obvious and yet anyone who claimed it before this was also accused of
wearing a beenie.....and yet.
Correction on the title as well since obviously it was the WTC that
was bombed in 93 and the OK bombing was in 95.
Here is another article that links them up. Also consider that James
Woosley a Former CIA Director says this about the investigative work
of the two main women involved.
"[W]hen the full stories of these two incidents [Oklahoma City and the
first Trade Center bombing] are finally told,” he told the Journal,
"those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big
explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a
debt of gratitude."
Maybe the Former CIA director is a tin foil wearing beenie cap wearer
but I doubt it.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
>Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
A peanut farmer who shouldnt have ever left the farm, Annan who is
running a multi billion dollar business selling Iraq oil, Schroder who
needs a lesson on exactly who saved his sorry ass country and
Gore....who cannot make up his mind on what his beliefs are...and who
had 8 Fucking Years to track this assholes down and both him and
Doofus were too busy Posing Like Alpha Males so love to do to bother
with their fucking jobs of defending the country.
>
>Don't let a bunch of terrorists change our values and standards of life!
3031 of us have no more life to give value too. Muddle headed little
assholes like Gore and Clinton took them away by not doing their duty
to preserve and protect this country. Now we must use draconian
methods to make sure those towel headed motherfuckers dont kill
millions.
You see having someone who knows about stuff like Bio Warfare will
scare the fucking living shit out of you.
Lets just say that if you hear of a small pox outbreak get vaccinated
now....because even then might be too late. If that happens 9/11 will
look like a toddler game of play soldiers compared to the death toll
of a small pox outbreak.
We are still at war and those people are stiff very much intending to
kill as many of us as possible. They will continue to kill us until we
are either dead or they are dead. That is your stark choice. Get over
it. These towel headed motherfuckers want to get back to the good old
days of the middle ages when they went rampaging through Europe
cleansing it from the infidels.
Islam isnt the enemy....jihadists are.
PAPA DOC
Dr Oddness Killtroll
<heh>
The rest of the world, huh?
Does that include the hundreds of millions who haven't an inkling?
Is this the result of a scientific study, or just your opinion?
Additionally, does majority = right?
We have a Bill of Rights to address just such a fallacy.
But, that's a somewhat subtle example.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
has, and would maintain a vast majority of its infastructure which is by far
the biggest reason we would have to stay for a long time, so that the
infastructure could be rebuilt. Iraq has that, and it is already known that
any coalition would not target the infastructure. Add to that, Iraq has
several billions of dollars worth of oil that they sell each year. Unlike
Afghanistan, they can afford to rebuild, and rebuild QUICK. So the biggest
reason we would have to stay is to ensure the Suni and Kurds could get along
and form a coalition govt. that works. With that done, it is adios, except
for those bases I am sure we would maintain for regional security means.
That same Iraqi oil, IMHO, is the same reason the big Arab nations don't
want war with Iraq and want the status quo. Iraq can't sell all the oil it
wishes to, but is limited to only that which the UN allows for food and
medicine/WMD (yes, No doubt that asshole spent money meant for hospitals to
further his production of WMD's). If Iraq is freed of this idiot, then it
opens up Iraq to be a MAJOR player in the world oil market, which means oil
prices will drop.
Dusty Rhodes
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020925203918...@mb-fa.aol.com...
PAPADOC
John Pancoast
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <Ma...@MarkDMahoney.com> wrote in message
news:3D927139...@MarkDMahoney.com...
Whoosh................
John
Sunny
"Dusty Rhodes" <james...@charter.net> wrote in message news:up50k12...@corp.supernews.com...
| Tom, really that argument is a scare tactic or a worst case scenario. Iraq
| has, and would maintain a vast majority of its infastructure which is by far
| the biggest reason we would have to stay for a long time, so that the
| infastructure could be rebuilt. Iraq has that, and it is already known that
| any coalition would not target the infastructure. Add to that, Iraq has
| several billions of dollars worth of oil that they sell each year. Unlike
| Afghanistan, they can afford to rebuild, and rebuild QUICK. So the biggest
| reason we would have to stay is to ensure the Suni and Kurds could get along
| and form a coalition govt. that works. With that done, it is adios, except
| for those bases I am sure we would maintain for regional security means.
|
| That same Iraqi oil, IMHO, is the same reason the big Arab nations don't
| want war with Iraq and want the status quo. Iraq can't sell all the oil it
| wishes to, but is limited to only that which the UN allows for food and
| medicine/WMD (yes, No doubt that asshole spent money meant for hospitals to
| further his production of WMD's). If Iraq is freed of this idiot, then it
| opens up Iraq to be a MAJOR player in the world oil market, which means oil
| prices will drop.
|
| Dusty Rhodes
Watched Australian 60 minutes on Sunday night, and was gobsmacked at the amount of oil being
trucked out of Iraq through Turkey (While our Navy is boarding ships in the Gulf to stop oil smuggling)
The Kurds are charging the drivers a tax ($1 million per day) and the line of tankers stretched for
9 Km @ 2 and 3 abreast. Thay even had organised truck parks to help clear the road each day.
(The same road that would be used for any allied push south into Iraq) :-(
Dr Oddness Killtroll
If
You mean 'the world agrees with Gore, and that is a fortunate thing,
Then
You're wrong. There are hudreds of millions who may confuse Al Gore with an
edible plant.
Your posting cannot be interpreted rationally to mean anything else.
Additionally,
If we presume your contention is true.
Then, the fact that the majority hold the same opinion, does not make this
opinion correct.
Thats what the US Bill of rights protects against.
The tyrrany of the masses.
It can happen in the following manner.
We have a revoluiton.
A few rich folks pay the bill.
We agree to pa 'em back once those pesky redcoats have been evcited.
Then, once the pesky redcoats go to fight the french, someplace else, we change
our minds.
We decide we cannot pay the few who fundded the revolution. In fact, we make a
law that says we dont have to pay.
It's done legally. Its done democratically. The majority agrees.
Its also wrong.
So, once the founding fathers become aware of this trap of 'democracy', they
construct a bill which attempts to protect agains such events, in the future.
Now, extrapolate this to deal with 'the rest of the world agreeing with Al
Gore'
Al's wrong.
If I've misinterpreted your post, well...
DrOK
PAPADOC
PAPA DOC
Dusty Rhodes
accordance with UN permission.
Dusty Rhodes
"Sunny" <womba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:omxk9.21876$6g7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Dale Reeck
>lonesome papa-paranoid, i was really happy that finally an USAmerican gave a point of view that was not the CIA's....
>What he says is what the rest ( "rest") of westerners think.
>And the truth? Well..... For now, i do not fear 'terrorist-alliance of evil'...
>The most powerful country's president behaves like a lame sim-wargamer!
>
>Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
>
>Don't let a bunch of terrorists change our values and standards of life!
It's funny how many people have a short memory or lack of the study of
history.
One of the problems with Europe is that they wait until after it's too
late to do something about a problem. Exhibit A is Adolf Hitler. Like
Sadaam now, he was a two-bit dictator in 1933. He still was in 1936
but was gaining more and more power (and a bigger and bigger
military). Instead of taking care of him then when European armies
still had the upper hand, they thought they could be civilized and
negotiate. All they managed to negotiate for was more time for Hitler
to become a bigger and bigger problem. Due to Europe's failure to
recognize the threat and eliminate it while there was still time, 50
million died. Now, 60 years later, we could be seeing it happen all
over again.
In Sadaam, you are talking about a guy who, in 1979 I believe, walked
into their parliament or whatever the Iraqi term for it was, and
executed several opposition members right in front of cameras. This is
a guy you seriously believe will negotiate in good faith?
While I don't care much for George W. Bush, I do give hime credit for
one thing. He recognizes that pre-emptive strikes are the only way to
deal with zealots like Sadaam. Israel knew this for years and they
were 100% right. Unfortunately, it took the World Trade Center to make
the rest of us realize it too.
And this isn't the rantings of some Rambo-American. I am a liberal
(actually, a moderate who leans left) who even voted for Clinton and
Gore. But even this liberal can recognize what needs to be done, no
matter how distasteful it ends up being. If the Iraqi people don't
rise up themselves, then we must get rid of Sadaam - better sooner
than later. Too many lives could be at stake if we do nothing.
Hey, maybe Europe is right and Sadaam cares more about staying in
power than having WMD. Maybe he really means it when he says he'll
cooperate. Maybe all of the US gestering is over-reaction and nothing
at all will happen. Who knows. But considering what's at stake if you
all are wrong, I am not willing to take that chance. Some innocent
Iraqis will die in a war. Maybe alot of them. But, if we do nothing
and Sadaam gets and uses WMD, then it becomes a simple matter really.
For survival, it's either us or them. I choose us. I'm sorry if that
offends the rest of the world.
Dale Reeck
DOC Legrand) wrote:
While I agree on your general views more or less concerning the war on
terrorism, it's completely offbase to blame Clinton/Gore for not doing
something about bin Laden. Clinton was guilty of the same thing every
US president, whether it be democrat or republican, has been since FDR
- The idea that the US was invulnerable - that it couldn't happen
here. Well, it can happen here, whether it be WTC or Pearl Harbor. You
can't blame Clinton/Gore for the WTC any more than you can blame Bush
Sr. for not getting rid of Sadaam or Reagan for the Marine barracks
attack in Lebanon in the 1980's.
No one can see the future and if it was easy to "get" these guys or to
prevent these acts, we would have gotten bin Laden by now and stopped
WTC from happening. But, as it's painfully obvious, we don't have bin
Laden and WTC did happen. Getting these guys is easier said than done
I guess.
PAPADOC
changed. At one point I just became convinced that making excuses is
nonsense. This isnt a partisian issue though I admit to disliking
everyone surrounding Clinton...Reagan has some blame for running after
Beruit, Bush Sr. has alot to answer for not going after Saddam....but
Clinton well he had two of the biggest attacks on US soil happen
during his watch.
>While I agree on your general views more or less concerning the war on
>terrorism, it's completely offbase to blame Clinton/Gore for not doing
>something about bin Laden.
When the WTC was bombed in 93 Clinton brushed it under the
table...gave it to law enforcement said it was a police matter. Mind
you that he knew that if that bomb had worked properly both buildings
would have come down. Estimates of up to 250,000 people dying have
been tossed around. When confronted in Jail one of the plotters said
that was the plan. And yet Clinton deemed it just a law enforcement
issue. Not only did he NOT see the threat, worse he refused to
consider the threat......those Towel Headed motherfuckers tried to
kill 250,000 people and he decided it was just a law enforcement
issue. So they found some of the people directly involved, fall guys,
and called it a day.
Then we have the Oklahoma City bombing which is also the more I get to
read about it, looking like those towel headed freaks were at it
again...I mean shit Clinton had to know unless that freak was so busy
being a counter culture hero that he forgot he wouldnt be much of a
hero if the fucking country got blown up.
Im sorry I appreciate your sentiments but I hold my public officials
responsible. I will hold Bush responsible if another plane gets
hijacked because he is diddling around with that fool Mineta who is
doing everything possible to NOT offend anyone and everything possible
to make sure some towel headed freak gets to fly another plane.
Political office has been a pretty easy gig up till now...now those
goofballs need to earn their pay.
From the shenanigans of the last couple of days I would say that they
still need some lessons.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
lacking on this issue. The lack of that common sense is what forced me
to drop my party and become a republican.
PAPA DOC
F r e e
HARD to tell anything....
And it's ridiculous to say (from different sides of the Atlantic) 'Europeans are always late' or 'Yankees are bomber-cowboys'...
BTW, France and Britain DECLARED war to Hitler, they just started loosing it on the field.
In case of Iraq, it's a shit country, with a shit army, and already controlled from the skies!
The only thing (besides religons if so) the people still believe in is in the principles of the United Nations.
And for the US it would be historically great to demostrate its power and grandeur from inside the UN, declaring itself leader of
the nations, instead of what it looks like now: way too belicist and ego-ist. Like...
--
F r e e
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> escribió en el mensaje news:3d93f59e...@news.west.cox.net...
Tom Cervo
>Beruit,
Not to mention his administration allowing said biological agents to be
exported to Iraq in the 80's--when they were our allies.
PAPADOC
policy of the world. The free exchange of information and material.
PAPA DOC
Dusty Rhodes
doing something when the person is on your side. If he changes side later
on, how do you have control over that. That is Blind Hindsite in my view
Tom! Trying to say he is to blame for giving that chem stuff to Bahgdad and
not taking into account that he was our ally is ridiculous!
Dusty Rhodes
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:3d947ec0...@news.west.cox.net...
Oliver Lü
Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:43:34 GMT, "F r e e" <fr...@spam.nothanx> wrote:
>
> >lonesome papa-paranoid, i was really happy that finally an USAmerican gave a
> >point of view that was not the CIA's....
> >What he says is what the rest ( "rest") of westerners think.
> >And the truth? Well..... For now, i do not fear 'terrorist-alliance of
> >evil'...
> >The most powerful country's president behaves like a lame sim-wargamer!
> >
> >Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
> >
> >Don't let a bunch of terrorists change our values and standards of life!
>
> It's funny how many people have a short memory or lack of the study of
> history.
>
> One of the problems with Europe is that they wait until after it's too
> late to do something about a problem. Exhibit A is Adolf Hitler. Like
> Sadaam now, he was a two-bit dictator in 1933. He still was in 1936
> but was gaining more and more power (and a bigger and bigger
> military). Instead of taking care of him then when European armies
> still had the upper hand, they thought they could be civilized and
> negotiate. All they managed to negotiate for was more time for Hitler
> to become a bigger and bigger problem. Due to Europe's failure to
> recognize the threat and eliminate it while there was still time, 50
> million died. Now, 60 years later, we could be seeing it happen all
> over again.
Yes but the U.S. did nothing either. In fact, there was low-grade
support for both Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. You can
argue that "it was not America's problem", but that then leads to "one
of the problems with America", namely that it chooses to believe it is
immune to events outside its borders.
> In Sadaam, you are talking about a guy who, in 1979 I believe, walked
> into their parliament or whatever the Iraqi term for it was, and
> executed several opposition members right in front of cameras. This is
> a guy you seriously believe will negotiate in good faith?
>
> While I don't care much for George W. Bush, I do give hime credit for
> one thing. He recognizes that pre-emptive strikes are the only way to
> deal with zealots like Sadaam. Israel knew this for years and they
> were 100% right. Unfortunately, it took the World Trade Center to make
> the rest of us realize it too.
>
> And this isn't the rantings of some Rambo-American. I am a liberal
> (actually, a moderate who leans left) who even voted for Clinton and
> Gore. But even this liberal can recognize what needs to be done, no
> matter how distasteful it ends up being. If the Iraqi people don't
> rise up themselves, then we must get rid of Sadaam - better sooner
> than later. Too many lives could be at stake if we do nothing.
>
> Hey, maybe Europe is right and Sadaam cares more about staying in
> power than having WMD. Maybe he really means it when he says he'll
> cooperate. Maybe all of the US gestering is over-reaction and nothing
> at all will happen. Who knows. But considering what's at stake if you
> all are wrong, I am not willing to take that chance. Some innocent
> Iraqis will die in a war. Maybe alot of them. But, if we do nothing
> and Sadaam gets and uses WMD, then it becomes a simple matter really.
> For survival, it's either us or them. I choose us. I'm sorry if that
> offends the rest of the world.
It is so obviously not a matter of "offending" the rest of the world I
don't know who you think you're fooling besides yourself (unless you
think launching an unjustified war is merely "offensive"). Of course if
Saddam gets and uses WMD (against the United States? how would he
deliver them? do you really think that's part of his plan?) and it
becomes a matter of survival the United States, like any other country
is entitled to defend itself (btw keeping down the price of oil is not a
issue of survival).
Keep in mind that Saddam has only attacked Kuwait (besides Iran, to
which the U.S. hardly objected), which historically was part of Iraq and
*for which he cleared with the American ambassador*. Do you think if he
was really "the next Hitler" (a totally unjustified and hysterical
phrase IMO) he would have asked for permission before invading? Saddam
*has* killed members of his own population, but he did that before the
Gulf War and the U.S. didn't raise objections then. BTW Turkey does the
same thing, to even the same population (Kurds) but the U.S. keeps quiet
because Turkey is a huge partner in NATO. So all these "moral reasons"
are smokescreen for:
1) initially, discomfort over control of Middle Eastern oil,
2) outrage over the temerity of a smaller country to defy the will of
the U.S., which sees itself as having the right to tell other countries
how to act,
3) American anger towards Arab Muslims because of 9/11, which doesn't
seem to have any meaningful connection to Iraq,
4) the old standbys, building political support for the government in
power and distracting people from domestic issues (the economy).
These are just my opinions, but as an American I think this entire thing
is a colossal waste of time and money ($100-200 billion is the latest
estimate?). And it's not just a few innocent Iraqis who will die--this
time the U.S. is looking at attacking the capital city of a medium-sized
nation, not just a bunch of recruits sitting in foxholes in the desert
somewhere. Many hundreds of Americans will probably be killed, and
thousands wounded. It's just not worth it.
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
"Towel headed freaks"? Arabs behind the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you
know something the rest of us don't?
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
There is a line of investigation right now that is leading people as
important as the Former Director of the CIA under Clinton to say that
Arab Terrorists gave training and support to the "lily whites" who
got caught. They are called lily whites not because ot their skin but
because of their clean records...and citizen status.
Dale Reeck
wrote:
>Yes but the U.S. did nothing either. In fact, there was low-grade
>support for both Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. You can
>argue that "it was not America's problem", but that then leads to "one
>of the problems with America", namely that it chooses to believe it is
>immune to events outside its borders.
>
Yes, I know the US did nothing. That's because the US was in an
isolationist mode and did not want to get involved in European
affairs. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we were forced into it. We
stayed out of things prior to 1941 and look what it got us.
I mean, isn't this what many people want today - for the US to stay
out of other country's business? That's all I hear on international
forums like these, about how those pesky Americans are sticking their
nose where is doesn't belong.. Then, when we do actually stay out of
something, people complain and ask "where is the US?".
Prime example is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Because it benefits the
Palestinians, we are constantly hounded to get involved, get after the
Israelis, mediate etc, as if it's solely our responsibility to solve
that quagmire. But when we want to do something that will benefit us,
like get rid of Sadaam, it becomes "US go home".
Well, you can't have it both ways. For us to get involved when it
benefits other countries and to stay out of affairs if it might
benefit us. The US, like any other country, isn't a charity
organization for the rest of the world. Either we are in or out. Other
countries are not going to pick and choose what we get involved with.
>It is so obviously not a matter of "offending" the rest of the world I
>don't know who you think you're fooling besides yourself (unless you
>think launching an unjustified war is merely "offensive"). Of course if
>Saddam gets and uses WMD (against the United States? how would he
>deliver them? do you really think that's part of his plan?) and it
>becomes a matter of survival the United States, like any other country
>is entitled to defend itself (btw keeping down the price of oil is not a
>issue of survival).
You sort of contradict yourself here. Above, you say, as a criticism,
that we choose to believe we are immune to events outside our borders,
then you criticize us for launching an unjustified war agaisnt Sadaam.
Well, you don't think that the people of Iraq and the world wouldn't
justify from getting rid of that maniac? It also goes back to my point
above about how it's OK for us to get involved if it helps others, but
not if it might help us.
And, by the way, oil prices and availability are indeed a matter of
survival for any nation. Oil makes countries go and without it, or if
prices go sky-high, you are destabilizing the world economy. Not
enough people understand this.
As far as WMD go, it doesn't take much effort or technology to set of
a chem or bio bomb in NYC. If a bunch of idiots can do it in a
Japanese subway, there's no reason to believe that Sadaam couldn't
share his technology with terrorist groups. Plus, there are other
targets besides the US - the Israelis, other allies and even his own
people.
The problem with a lot of people is that they believe in the basic
goodness of man and law and order. Sadaam is an enemy that believes in
neither of those things. Most leaders in the world, even ones we don't
like or who don't like us, aren't really evil. They are just looking
out for themselves. But there are a small handful of leaders, barely
enough to count on one hand perhaps, who truly are evil. Sadaam is one
of those. People who want to appease him because they believe in the
civility of mankind are only going to get bit in the hand. It reminds
me of that scene in "The War of the Worlds". The priest, who believes
that the Martians only need the hand of friendship extended to them,
ventures forward to do just that. He promptly gets vaporized. A good
lesson I think.
>
>Keep in mind that Saddam has only attacked Kuwait (besides Iran, to
>which the U.S. hardly objected), which historically was part of Iraq and
>*for which he cleared with the American ambassador*. Do you think if he
>was really "the next Hitler" (a totally unjustified and hysterical
>phrase IMO) he would have asked for permission before invading? Saddam
>*has* killed members of his own population, but he did that before the
>Gulf War and the U.S. didn't raise objections then. BTW Turkey does the
>same thing, to even the same population (Kurds) but the U.S. keeps quiet
>because Turkey is a huge partner in NATO. So all these "moral reasons"
>are smokescreen for:
Sadaam did not "ask permission". Satellite recon of movement along the
border was the US's first indication. If anything, there was confusion
over his intent, combined with a lack of instructions to US diplomats
prior to Aug 1 on how to handle the possible aggressive intent of a
precarious ally against a stronger (politically, that is) one. This
idea of the US approving any such invasion is nonsense, but was
originally cited by people who do not understand how diplomacy in such
delicate matters works. It expanded to people (mainly thanks to the
internet) who maybe do understand how things work, but merely took the
assertion as fact. As far as Sadaam being the next Hitler goes, who
knows? I doubt people in 1933 thought Hitler was going to become the
murderer of 50 million people. I don't want to wait and find out and
see if Sadaam decides to give some bio technology to al Queda.
In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities with
Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly, killing
their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal (barely)
means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries with similar
military strengths. Hitler's war machine didn't blossom until 1936
when, ironically, European nations did nothing to check Germany's
illegal arms buildups. They wanted to rely on negotiations, even
though Hitler became stronger and stronger and gobbled up nation after
nation. And, imagine that, the UN doesn't want to enforce rules
against Sadaam's illegal arms buildups either, thinking negotiation
will work. Both leaders also claim being "victims", Hitler by the Jews
and Sadaam by the US. Hell, they even both are artists, Hitler a
painter and Sadaam, a (apparently) fiction writer.
Another question to ask yourself too. Iraq says it will now coorporate
with UN weapons inspectors. They also claim that it will take SIX
MONTHS before inspections start. Why so long? It might take a month or
even two to get logistics in place. Hell, I'll even give them three.
But six months? Now way in hell should it take six months to get these
inspections going. Unless of course you need the time to hide stuff.
I'm afraid the UN is just a bunch of suckers.
>These are just my opinions, but as an American I think this entire thing
>is a colossal waste of time and money ($100-200 billion is the latest
>estimate?). And it's not just a few innocent Iraqis who will die--this
>time the U.S. is looking at attacking the capital city of a medium-sized
>nation, not just a bunch of recruits sitting in foxholes in the desert
>somewhere. Many hundreds of Americans will probably be killed, and
>thousands wounded. It's just not worth it.
Anyone who serves in the military knows that it is, infact, "worth
it". Sadaam is not some manufactured threat by the US despite what
some people are contending. Evidence of Sadaam's brutality against his
own people is evidence of that. Yet, people continue to keep the
blinders on.
The problems that caused thousands of Iraqis to flee their positions
during the Gulf War still exist. I wouldn't count on the regular
forces to be of much use. Republican Guard units would be the most
likely to remain loyal, but even holed up in Baghdad, there wouldn't
be an immediate need to go into there or Tikrit, the other Sadaam
stronghold. It would not be unconceivable for the US to wait them out.
After all, even a loyal army gets hungry. But who knows what tactics
will be used.
A new invasion will be bloody no doubt. But sometimes it's worth the
price. Maybe not for oil, but to wipe out a maniac who provides
weapons to terrorists as well as financial support and a base of
operations? You bet it's worth it. And, by the way, if you think he
doesn't do these things, you are the one who is kidding yourself. I
mean, maybe he doesn't. But I wouldn't count on it.
11Bee
"Dale Reeck" <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:lup7puo6adqjh4flj...@4ax.com...
>>
> It's funny how many people have a short memory or lack of the study of
> history.
>
> One of the problems with Europe is that they wait until after it's too
> late to do something about a problem. Exhibit A is Adolf Hitler. Like
> Sadaam now, he was a two-bit dictator in 1933. He still was in 1936
> but was gaining more and more power (and a bigger and bigger
> military). Instead of taking care of him then when European armies
> still had the upper hand, they thought they could be civilized and
> negotiate. All they managed to negotiate for was more time for Hitler
> to become a bigger and bigger problem. Due to Europe's failure to
> recognize the threat and eliminate it while there was still time, 50
> million died.
Exhibit B is Slobodan Miloscevic (sp?) of Serbia. Again, the EC's inability
to
police it's own backyard led to countless thousands being killed by the
Serbs
before the US (again) had to get involve to help our less fortunate European
friends.
11Bee
JohnnyChemo
upheld? The UN is looking mighty toothless in the Iraq issue. It has
been how many years now since inspectors were tossed out of the country?
What has the UN done about enforcing its edicts? Nothing. Makes you
wonder about the value of the UN.
JohnnyChemo
> In article <lup7puo6adqjh4flj...@4ax.com>,
> Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Yes but the U.S. did nothing either. In fact, there was low-grade
> support for both Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. You can
> argue that "it was not America's problem", but that then leads to "one
> of the problems with America", namely that it chooses to believe it is
> immune to events outside its borders.
Of course, in the 1930's, the US was hardly the super power it is today.
> 3) American anger towards Arab Muslims because of 9/11, which doesn't
> seem to have any meaningful connection to Iraq,
Actually, there seems to be more and more evidence coming out linking
Saddam to al-Quaeda.
Oliver Lü
pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
> Apparently.
>
> There is a line of investigation right now that is leading people as
> important as the Former Director of the CIA under Clinton to say that
> Arab Terrorists gave training and support to the "lily whites" who
> got caught. They are called lily whites not because ot their skin but
> because of their clean records...and citizen status.
>
> PAPA DOC
So if these "lily whites" are not Caucasian, what connection did they
have to Timothy McVeigh, whose skin is (was) lily-white?
Oliver Lü
JohnnyChemo <johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oliver Lü wrote:
> > In article <lup7puo6adqjh4flj...@4ax.com>,
> > Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes but the U.S. did nothing either. In fact, there was low-grade
> > support for both Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. You can
> > argue that "it was not America's problem", but that then leads to "one
> > of the problems with America", namely that it chooses to believe it is
> > immune to events outside its borders.
>
> Of course, in the 1930's, the US was hardly the super power it is today.
True but irrelevant, you don't have to be a super power in order to
participate and not stick your head in the sand.
> > 3) American anger towards Arab Muslims because of 9/11, which doesn't
> > seem to have any meaningful connection to Iraq,
>
> Actually, there seems to be more and more evidence coming out linking
> Saddam to al-Quaeda.
To me it seems like the Bush administration is desperately trying to
find *any* connection between the two.
John Pancoast
"JohnnyChemo" <johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ru6l9.4648$m92.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
The UN, like it's predecessor, The League of Nations, is a joke, that
causes more problems than it solves. Very good at being a bottomless money
pit though, while making niave do-gooders feel better about themselves <g>.
John
>
Oliver Lü
Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2002 19:28:16 GMT, Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes but the U.S. did nothing either. In fact, there was low-grade
> >support for both Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. You can
> >argue that "it was not America's problem", but that then leads to "one
> >of the problems with America", namely that it chooses to believe it is
> >immune to events outside its borders.
> >
>
> Yes, I know the US did nothing. That's because the US was in an
> isolationist mode and did not want to get involved in European
> affairs. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we were forced into it. We
> stayed out of things prior to 1941 and look what it got us.
>
> I mean, isn't this what many people want today - for the US to stay
> out of other country's business? That's all I hear on international
> forums like these, about how those pesky Americans are sticking their
> nose where is doesn't belong.. Then, when we do actually stay out of
> something, people complain and ask "where is the US?".
I think there's a world of difference between being engaged and pushing
people around.
> Prime example is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Because it benefits the
> Palestinians, we are constantly hounded to get involved, get after the
> Israelis, mediate etc, as if it's solely our responsibility to solve
> that quagmire. But when we want to do something that will benefit us,
> like get rid of Sadaam, it becomes "US go home".
>
> Well, you can't have it both ways. For us to get involved when it
> benefits other countries and to stay out of affairs if it might
> benefit us. The US, like any other country, isn't a charity
> organization for the rest of the world. Either we are in or out. Other
> countries are not going to pick and choose what we get involved with.
You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path which
is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or whoever it is
we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
> >It is so obviously not a matter of "offending" the rest of the world I
> >don't know who you think you're fooling besides yourself (unless you
> >think launching an unjustified war is merely "offensive"). Of course if
> >Saddam gets and uses WMD (against the United States? how would he
> >deliver them? do you really think that's part of his plan?) and it
> >becomes a matter of survival the United States, like any other country
> >is entitled to defend itself (btw keeping down the price of oil is not a
> >issue of survival).
>
>
> You sort of contradict yourself here. Above, you say, as a criticism,
> that we choose to believe we are immune to events outside our borders,
> then you criticize us for launching an unjustified war agaisnt Sadaam.
Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
it's being discussed reveals that.
> Well, you don't think that the people of Iraq and the world wouldn't
> justify from getting rid of that maniac? It also goes back to my point
> above about how it's OK for us to get involved if it helps others, but
> not if it might help us.
So far world opinion seems split on whether deposing Saddam is
justifiable; also, I don't understand your final point. *Of course* it's
ok to get involved if it's going to help others, but not to invade
another country out of pure self-interest. (actually I don't think
attacking Iraq would really help the U.S. that much anyway, besides to
preserve its image of power [which can also backfire])
> And, by the way, oil prices and availability are indeed a matter of
> survival for any nation. Oil makes countries go and without it, or if
> prices go sky-high, you are destabilizing the world economy. Not
> enough people understand this.
>
> As far as WMD go, it doesn't take much effort or technology to set of
> a chem or bio bomb in NYC. If a bunch of idiots can do it in a
> Japanese subway, there's no reason to believe that Sadaam couldn't
> share his technology with terrorist groups.
By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
leader.
Plus, there are other
> targets besides the US - the Israelis, other allies and even his own
> people.
So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
take care of their own problems?
> The problem with a lot of people is that they believe in the basic
> goodness of man and law and order. Sadaam is an enemy that believes in
> neither of those things. Most leaders in the world, even ones we don't
> like or who don't like us, aren't really evil. They are just looking
> out for themselves. But there are a small handful of leaders, barely
> enough to count on one hand perhaps, who truly are evil. Sadaam is one
> of those. People who want to appease him because they believe in the
> civility of mankind are only going to get bit in the hand. It reminds
> me of that scene in "The War of the Worlds". The priest, who believes
> that the Martians only need the hand of friendship extended to them,
> ventures forward to do just that. He promptly gets vaporized. A good
> lesson I think.
I agree that Saddam is a bad guy, but I don't think he's "pure evil" or
anything. I think that image has been conjured by the U.S. in order to
justify its actions. (why did we not care about his "evilness" until he
did something which threatened *us*? [i.e. Kuwaiti oil])
> >Keep in mind that Saddam has only attacked Kuwait (besides Iran, to
> >which the U.S. hardly objected), which historically was part of Iraq and
> >*for which he cleared with the American ambassador*. Do you think if he
> >was really "the next Hitler" (a totally unjustified and hysterical
> >phrase IMO) he would have asked for permission before invading? Saddam
> >*has* killed members of his own population, but he did that before the
> >Gulf War and the U.S. didn't raise objections then. BTW Turkey does the
> >same thing, to even the same population (Kurds) but the U.S. keeps quiet
> >because Turkey is a huge partner in NATO. So all these "moral reasons"
> >are smokescreen for:
>
>
> Sadaam did not "ask permission". Satellite recon of movement along the
> border was the US's first indication. If anything, there was confusion
> over his intent, combined with a lack of instructions to US diplomats
> prior to Aug 1 on how to handle the possible aggressive intent of a
> precarious ally against a stronger (politically, that is) one. This
> idea of the US approving any such invasion is nonsense, but was
> originally cited by people who do not understand how diplomacy in such
> delicate matters works. It expanded to people (mainly thanks to the
> internet) who maybe do understand how things work, but merely took the
> assertion as fact. As far as Sadaam being the next Hitler goes, who
> knows? I doubt people in 1933 thought Hitler was going to become the
> murderer of 50 million people. I don't want to wait and find out and
> see if Sadaam decides to give some bio technology to al Queda.
Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all the
dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a valid method
I think). As for communications between Hussein and the U.S. before the
invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look more into.
> In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities with
> Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly, killing
> their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal (barely)
> means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries with similar
> military strengths.
Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably aren't
as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis. The Germans
single-handedly took on most of the industrialized world and almost won.
That comparison is *way* overblown.
Hitler's war machine didn't blossom until 1936
> when, ironically, European nations did nothing to check Germany's
> illegal arms buildups. They wanted to rely on negotiations, even
> though Hitler became stronger and stronger and gobbled up nation after
> nation. And, imagine that, the UN doesn't want to enforce rules
> against Sadaam's illegal arms buildups either, thinking negotiation
> will work. Both leaders also claim being "victims", Hitler by the Jews
> and Sadaam by the US. Hell, they even both are artists, Hitler a
> painter and Sadaam, a (apparently) fiction writer.
Hitler wasn't a painter, he drew sketches before he got into politics.
As if that comparison really had any meaning to it anyway. (Churchill
*did* like to paint, does that mean he was a "madman"?)
> Another question to ask yourself too. Iraq says it will now coorporate
> with UN weapons inspectors. They also claim that it will take SIX
> MONTHS before inspections start. Why so long? It might take a month or
> even two to get logistics in place. Hell, I'll even give them three.
> But six months? Now way in hell should it take six months to get these
> inspections going. Unless of course you need the time to hide stuff.
> I'm afraid the UN is just a bunch of suckers.
Well that's why they're pushing for a seven-day thing. Let's see what
happens.
> >These are just my opinions, but as an American I think this entire thing
> >is a colossal waste of time and money ($100-200 billion is the latest
> >estimate?). And it's not just a few innocent Iraqis who will die--this
> >time the U.S. is looking at attacking the capital city of a medium-sized
> >nation, not just a bunch of recruits sitting in foxholes in the desert
> >somewhere. Many hundreds of Americans will probably be killed, and
> >thousands wounded. It's just not worth it.
>
>
> Anyone who serves in the military knows that it is, infact, "worth
> it". Sadaam is not some manufactured threat by the US despite what
> some people are contending. Evidence of Sadaam's brutality against his
> own people is evidence of that. Yet, people continue to keep the
> blinders on.
One of the founding points of the United States is that decisions to go
to war are expressly kept *out* of the hands of the military, for the
obvious reason that military people have a tendency to seek military
solutions to everything. And again, I'm not disputing Saddam's treatment
of his own people. It's just the U.S. doesn't seem to actually care
about things like this unless they can use them to justify advancing
their own geopolitical self-interests.
> The problems that caused thousands of Iraqis to flee their positions
> during the Gulf War still exist. I wouldn't count on the regular
> forces to be of much use. Republican Guard units would be the most
> likely to remain loyal, but even holed up in Baghdad, there wouldn't
> be an immediate need to go into there or Tikrit, the other Sadaam
> stronghold. It would not be unconceivable for the US to wait them out.
> After all, even a loyal army gets hungry. But who knows what tactics
> will be used.
I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much more
involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much feistier when
they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't like their own
regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider invaders, as well
as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
Dale Reeck
wrote:
>You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path which
>is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or whoever it is
>we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
I would think that getting rid of Sadaam and replacing him with a
stable leadership would help pretty much everyone in the world. I'm
sure Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not shed a tear over Iraq.
They'd never admit it in public, but secretly, they are probably
cheering for the US to go in and dink Sadaam. And I doubt there would
be any power vacumn problems as some have predicted. We did it
successfully (so far) in Afghanistan, who had an even bigger and more
complex leadership mess over there, and so far has not led to
destabilization.
>Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
>untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
>it's being discussed reveals that.
Consequences? You mean like airliners getting jammed into skyscrapers?
How can things get any worse than that? Getting rid of Sadaam and
eliminating another possible terrorist supporter can only help our
security.
>By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
>bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
>connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
>doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
>leader.
You are right, lots of people can make chems and bios. But it's the
guys who would use them or give them to others to use against us
(terrorists) who are the ones that I worry about.
>So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
>take care of their own problems?
What happened to "the middle path" where it's OK if good for the US
and others? We aren't going to war for Israel. Israel is more than
capable of taking care of itself. But if we get rid of Sadaam and it
happens to help some allies, all the better.
>I agree that Saddam is a bad guy, but I don't think he's "pure evil" or
>anything. I think that image has been conjured by the U.S. in order to
>justify its actions. (why did we not care about his "evilness" until he
>did something which threatened *us*? [i.e. Kuwaiti oil])
I sort of concluded that Sadaam had that evil thing going for him when
I saw pictures of the dead Kurd villagers he gassed.
>Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
>generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all the
>dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a valid method
>I think). As for communications between Hussein and the U.S. before the
>invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look more into.
I consider all of WWII part of Hitler's handiwork. Without Hitler,
there isn't a European war. maybe a Pacific War, but not a European
one. Actually, the number might be closer to 40 million. It's hard to
know how many people Hitler killed and how many were Stalin's
responsibility.
>Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
>talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably aren't
>as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis. The Germans
>single-handedly took on most of the industrialized world and almost won.
>That comparison is *way* overblown.
In 1933, the Versailles Treaty still held back Germany military
efforts. Hitler began his secret rearmament soon after gaining power.
But 1933 Germany and 2002 Iraq are a valid military comparison. 1936
germany is a different matter though and that's the point. I do not
want Sadaam to reach 1936 german military lervels. But 1933 is a
closer comparison. In fact, Iraq may even have a bit more manpower
than Hitler did in 1933. The only advantage the Saudis have is in US
technology. Turkey has a decent force too and could handle Iraq. Saudi
Arabia probably could not. Israel has nukes, so they aren't even in
Iraq's military stratosphere. In fact, it's the only reason Sadaam
hasn't attacked Israel. Even without nukes, Israel's technology and
training would trounce Sadaam.
>Hitler wasn't a painter, he drew sketches before he got into politics.
>As if that comparison really had any meaning to it anyway. (Churchill
>*did* like to paint, does that mean he was a "madman"?)
It wasn't meant to be a complete anaylsis, just an interesting note -
the idea that a madman could have an artistic side too.
>Well that's why they're pushing for a seven-day thing. Let's see what
>happens.
I fully expect Sadaam to come up with an excuse for not allowing
anything other than what Iraq specifies. He has in the past.
>One of the founding points of the United States is that decisions to go
>to war are expressly kept *out* of the hands of the military, for the
>obvious reason that military people have a tendency to seek military
>solutions to everything. And again, I'm not disputing Saddam's treatment
>of his own people. It's just the U.S. doesn't seem to actually care
>about things like this unless they can use them to justify advancing
>their own geopolitical self-interests.
The ones pushing for a military strike are Bush and his
administration. They are civilian, are they not? In any case, the idea
of promoting common good in the world is one that has never been true.
Not for any nation on earth. A nation-state basically exists to
promote it's own self-interest. From the largest superpower to the
smallest strip of dirt, every nation guides their conduct solely on
their own self interest. Even when it helps others, it is still in
support of their own self-interest. I refuse to except that it's OK
for other nations to do this, but not the US simply because we are the
biggest kid on the block.
>I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much more
>involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much feistier when
>they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't like their own
>regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider invaders, as well
>as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
True, but do you think the people are going to die left and right to
save Sadaam? Remember, like Hitler, their army (or at least their
Republican Guard) swears loyalty to Saddam, not to Iraq. I saw some
news org interview a supposed reservist in the outskirts of Baghdad.
He said they are tired of war and if it comes, his family is sitting
this one out. I suspect a lot of common Iraqis feel this way.
In any case, it is always good to debate someone in a civil manner :)
Vern Pellerin
>But of what value are those principles if they cannot (or will not) be
>upheld? The UN is looking mighty toothless in the Iraq issue. It has
>been how many years now since inspectors were tossed out of the country?
>What has the UN done about enforcing its edicts? Nothing. Makes you
>wonder about the value of the UN.
It doesn't make me wonder. For several years now I've been telling my friends
that the UN is totally worthless. The UN has no balls to back up any threat.
But at some point, the UN often does tend to jump up and stand behind the US
of A and say "I got your back", as soon as it's extremely SAFE to do so.
PAPADOC
term doesnt have anything to do with white skin. The connections are
gathering as time goes by and people get serious about finding out the
story.
http://www.indystar.com/library/topics/opinion/patterson/columns/2002_0824.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217
PAPADOC
the UN is the oil they are brokering for Iraq....thats a big reason
they want to go slow. Kofi doesnt want his sugar daddy blown to bits.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
>Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
>untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
>it's being discussed reveals that.
Im reminded of Aliens when the private after watching the shuttle
crash tells someone "I dont know if you have been keeping up with
current events but we just got our asses kicked"
Seems to me that 3031 of us have indeed reaped the consequences of 2
decades of appeasement. Now its the turn of those who believe
appeasement only leads to contempt and that the only way to deal with
the towel headed freaks is to kill them in great big heaping mounds
until they understand that fighting a 21 century Nation with 8th
century attitudes is a great way to commit suicide.
>So far world opinion seems split on whether deposing Saddam is
>justifiable; also, I don't understand your final point. *Of course* it's
>ok to get involved if it's going to help others, but not to invade
>another country out of pure self-interest. (actually I don't think
>attacking Iraq would really help the U.S. that much anyway, besides to
>preserve its image of power [which can also backfire])
By that same logic invading and disposing Tojo and Hitler were bad
ideas.
>By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
>bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
>connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
>doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
>leader.
Robbers and murderers use guns....normal people also have guns. The
poilice dont as a rule shoot everyone that has a gun...only those who
point them at the police or other innocents. Saddam has pointed and
now he is gonna pay....btw attempting to assasinate a Former US
President is I believe an act of war.
The case about Al Queda and Saddam is being made right before your
eyes.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
sometime and I wondered why the Bush administration hadnt connected
the dots. But alas the Government isnt very good at connecting the
dots....but at least Bush will not call the police on Saddam like
Clinton did with Bin Laden. All respect to the Police but calling them
to apprehend a World Terrorists is bullshit and was meant to cover
Clintons ass.
PAPA DOC
John Pancoast
John
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote in message news:<3d9539a4...@news.west.cox.net>...
Chuck C.
Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net> wrote in
news:oliverlu-3BEDE2...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net:
snip
>
>
> You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path
> which is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or
> whoever it is we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
Some of us think getting rid of Sadaam and standing up to these thugs is
good for us and the rest of the world. Look at the biggest areas of chaos
in the world and you'll find a dictator or religous extremists. Yep,
taking care of that will be a GOOD thing.
snip
>
>
> Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
> untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
> it's being discussed reveals that.
>
No, we just worry about the bigger consequences if we dont. Schoolyard
fight....look, we helped in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia and countless other
places and what did it get us. Well, screw that from now on. We'll still
help out, but mess with the bull, get the horns.
snip
>
>
> By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
> bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
> connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
> doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
> leader.
Gread idea!!! Attack anyone who we think has WMD and we think will use it
against us. Do you want royalties for the idea???
As for Sadaam and Al Qaeda, ever hear the saying "The enemy of my enemy is
my friend"????
>
>
> Plus, there are other
>> targets besides the US - the Israelis, other allies and even his own
>> people.
>
>
> So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
> take care of their own problems?
>
If you know anything, you know we've been holding the Israelis back from
kicking ass before.
>snip
>
>
> Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
> generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all
> the dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a valid
> method I think). As for communications between Hussein and the U.S.
> before the invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look more into.
Not a valid method??? Ask the wounded, or the surviving family if they
think its valid. If he's not to blame for the dead in Europe, who is???
>
>
>> In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities with
>> Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly, killing
>> their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal (barely)
>> means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries with similar
>> military strengths.
>
>
> Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
> talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably
> aren't as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis. The
> Germans single-handedly took on most of the industrialized world and
> almost won. That comparison is *way* overblown.
>
Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
>
snip
>
>> Another question to ask yourself too. Iraq says it will now
>> coorporate with UN weapons inspectors. They also claim that it will
>> take SIX MONTHS before inspections start. Why so long? It might take
>> a month or even two to get logistics in place. Hell, I'll even give
>> them three. But six months? Now way in hell should it take six months
>> to get these inspections going. Unless of course you need the time to
>> hide stuff. I'm afraid the UN is just a bunch of suckers.
>
>
> Well that's why they're pushing for a seven-day thing. Let's see what
> happens.
>
One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work, why didn't they
before???
Oh, and it looks like as of this morning (sat), Iraq is refusing the new
inspections. Begining to wake up yet??
>
>> >These are just my opinions, but as an American I think this entire
>> >thing is a colossal waste of time and money ($100-200 billion is the
>> >latest estimate?). And it's not just a few innocent Iraqis who will
>> >die--this time the U.S. is looking at attacking the capital city of
>> >a medium-sized nation, not just a bunch of recruits sitting in
>> >foxholes in the desert somewhere. Many hundreds of Americans will
>> >probably be killed, and thousands wounded. It's just not worth it.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who serves in the military knows that it is, infact, "worth
>> it". Sadaam is not some manufactured threat by the US despite what
>> some people are contending. Evidence of Sadaam's brutality against
>> his own people is evidence of that. Yet, people continue to keep the
>> blinders on.
>
>
> One of the founding points of the United States is that decisions to
> go to war are expressly kept *out* of the hands of the military, for
> the obvious reason that military people have a tendency to seek
> military solutions to everything. And again, I'm not disputing
> Saddam's treatment of his own people. It's just the U.S. doesn't seem
> to actually care about things like this unless they can use them to
> justify advancing their own geopolitical self-interests.
>
Again, Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia. We got jack squat out of those. Now,
there is a real threat and we WILL look after our own interest...because
the rest of the world wont.
>
>> The problems that caused thousands of Iraqis to flee their positions
>> during the Gulf War still exist. I wouldn't count on the regular
>> forces to be of much use. Republican Guard units would be the most
>> likely to remain loyal, but even holed up in Baghdad, there wouldn't
>> be an immediate need to go into there or Tikrit, the other Sadaam
>> stronghold. It would not be unconceivable for the US to wait them
>> out. After all, even a loyal army gets hungry. But who knows what
>> tactics will be used.
>
>
> I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much more
> involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much feistier when
> they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't like their own
> regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider invaders, as well
> as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
Like all those surrendering troups during Desert Storm 1? I'm not saying
I'm looking forward to urban warfare, but I think you overestimate the
majority of Iraqis willingness to defend this regieme.
Wake up and smell the coffee, it's been brewing for awhile.
Chuck
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
Fine, I'll bite. What then is the connection between Saddam and bin
Laden? (I personally haven't heard of anything substantive, and it seems
like Bush has only really tried to find a connection when it became
clear the rest of the world wasn't going to rubberstamp his plans).
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
> hehehe..
>
> >Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
> >untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
> >it's being discussed reveals that.
>
> Im reminded of Aliens when the private after watching the shuttle
> crash tells someone "I dont know if you have been keeping up with
> current events but we just got our asses kicked"
>
> Seems to me that 3031 of us have indeed reaped the consequences of 2
> decades of appeasement. Now its the turn of those who believe
> appeasement only leads to contempt and that the only way to deal with
> the towel headed freaks is to kill them in great big heaping mounds
> until they understand that fighting a 21 century Nation with 8th
> century attitudes is a great way to commit suicide.
Again you're confusing Iraq with Al Qaeda. The United States hasn't been
*appeasing* Iraq in any sense of the word either, there have been
periodic military interventions as well as strongly felt economic
boycott ever since the end of the Gulf War. BTW I would appreciate it if
you would stop referring to Arabs as "towel headed freaks".
> >So far world opinion seems split on whether deposing Saddam is
> >justifiable; also, I don't understand your final point. *Of course* it's
> >ok to get involved if it's going to help others, but not to invade
> >another country out of pure self-interest. (actually I don't think
> >attacking Iraq would really help the U.S. that much anyway, besides to
> >preserve its image of power [which can also backfire])
>
> By that same logic invading and disposing Tojo and Hitler were bad
> ideas.
No it isn't because the U.S. didn't attack Japan or Germany unilaterally.
> >By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
> >bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
> >connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
> >doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
> >leader.
>
> Robbers and murderers use guns....normal people also have guns. The
> poilice dont as a rule shoot everyone that has a gun...only those who
> point them at the police or other innocents. Saddam has pointed and
> now he is gonna pay....btw attempting to assasinate a Former US
> President is I believe an act of war.
You really lost me here. Which (former) President has Saddam attempted
to assassinate?
Oliver Lü
"Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote:
> Sorry to interupt...but some of this just flies in the face of logic.
>
> Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net> wrote in
> news:oliverlu-3BEDE2...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net:
>
> snip
> >
> >
> > You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path
> > which is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or
> > whoever it is we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
>
> Some of us think getting rid of Sadaam and standing up to these thugs is
> good for us and the rest of the world. Look at the biggest areas of chaos
> in the world and you'll find a dictator or religous extremists. Yep,
> taking care of that will be a GOOD thing.
"Standing up to Saddam"? The U.S. is about a thousand times more
powerful than Iraq. And it's not enough to simply defeat a country
militarily to "help it". There's a lot more involved in "taking care" of
a situation like that.
> snip
> >
> >
> > Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
> > untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
> > it's being discussed reveals that.
> >
>
> No, we just worry about the bigger consequences if we dont. Schoolyard
> fight....look, we helped in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia and countless other
> places and what did it get us. Well, screw that from now on. We'll still
> help out, but mess with the bull, get the horns.
By "schoolyard" I meant the way people talk about war if it's some kind
of fistfight...they don't talk realistically about the dead and wounded
*we* will suffer.
> snip
> >
> > By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
> > bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
> > connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
> > doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
> > leader.
>
> Gread idea!!! Attack anyone who we think has WMD and we think will use it
> against us. Do you want royalties for the idea???
I guess we differ in our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the
U.S. I don't personally believe he has any plans on using WMD against
the U.S.
> As for Sadaam and Al Qaeda, ever hear the saying "The enemy of my enemy is
> my friend"????
Yes, I have, but I'm not sure who you're referring to with this example.
BTW that's exactly the philosophy the U.S. used when it supported Saddam
in the Iran-Iraq War.
> > Plus, there are other
> >> targets besides the US - the Israelis, other allies and even his own
> >> people.
> >
> >
> > So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
> > take care of their own problems?
> >
>
> If you know anything, you know we've been holding the Israelis back from
> kicking ass before.
"If I know anything"? Whose ass have we stopped the Israelis from
kicking, and do you think it really would have been a good idea for them
to do so?
> >snip
> >
> >
> > Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
> > generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all
> > the dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a valid
> > method I think). As for communications between Hussein and the U.S.
> > before the invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look more into.
>
> Not a valid method??? Ask the wounded, or the surviving family if they
> think its valid. If he's not to blame for the dead in Europe, who is???
What makes you think there's always one individual who's responsible for
everything? Sure if you had to pick one person Hitler's probably the
guy, but history is much more complex than that.
> >> In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities with
> >> Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly, killing
> >> their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal (barely)
> >> means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries with similar
> >> military strengths.
> >
> >
> > Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
> > talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably
> > aren't as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis. The
> > Germans single-handedly took on most of the industrialized world and
> > almost won. That comparison is *way* overblown.
> >
>
> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
> there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
That still doesn't mean it was anything to Nazi Germany had. Conquering
Saudi Arabia is a far cry from conquering continental Europe. And what
makes you think Saddam has *any* designs on Saudi Arabia anyway? (that
seems to be one of those assumptions that gets thrown around without
anyone ever examining it) Just because he threw some Scuds at it while
U.N. forces were stationed there, getting ready to attack his army?
Again where we seem to differ is in our estimation of the threat Iraq
poses to the United States. Yes if we had conclusive proof that he was
about to launch missiles laden with chemical weapons at American cities
a preemptive strike would not be nearly as objectionable, if at all. I
just don't think that's the case. I think Bush and his administration
are just riding a wave of fear and anger because of 9/11. (justifiable
fear and anger, I would add, but it's being pointed at the wrong target)
> >> The problems that caused thousands of Iraqis to flee their positions
> >> during the Gulf War still exist. I wouldn't count on the regular
> >> forces to be of much use. Republican Guard units would be the most
> >> likely to remain loyal, but even holed up in Baghdad, there wouldn't
> >> be an immediate need to go into there or Tikrit, the other Sadaam
> >> stronghold. It would not be unconceivable for the US to wait them
> >> out. After all, even a loyal army gets hungry. But who knows what
> >> tactics will be used.
> >
> >
> > I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much more
> > involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much feistier when
> > they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't like their own
> > regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider invaders, as well
> > as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
>
> Like all those surrendering troups during Desert Storm 1? I'm not saying
> I'm looking forward to urban warfare, but I think you overestimate the
> majority of Iraqis willingness to defend this regieme.
The point I was making, which you seem to pretend not to notice, is that
when you attack people's homelands they fight for their country, not
their "regime".
> Wake up and smell the coffee, it's been brewing for awhile.
>
>
> Chuck
Maybe you should switch to decaf.
Oliver Lü
Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2002 02:50:10 GMT, Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path which
> >is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or whoever it is
> >we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
>
> I would think that getting rid of Sadaam and replacing him with a
> stable leadership would help pretty much everyone in the world. I'm
> sure Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not shed a tear over Iraq.
> They'd never admit it in public, but secretly, they are probably
> cheering for the US to go in and dink Sadaam. And I doubt there would
> be any power vacumn problems as some have predicted. We did it
> successfully (so far) in Afghanistan, who had an even bigger and more
> complex leadership mess over there, and so far has not led to
> destabilization.
You might be right about the governments of those countries, but much of
the population would see it as Western-Christian-American-etc.
imperialism. Which would probably inspire many of them to be attracted
to terrorist methods of resisting American influence....which would
defeat the whole point of increasing our level of safety.
> >Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
> >untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of way
> >it's being discussed reveals that.
>
> Consequences? You mean like airliners getting jammed into skyscrapers?
> How can things get any worse than that? Getting rid of Sadaam and
> eliminating another possible terrorist supporter can only help our
> security.
Again, this assumes that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. And if you
recall, part of the shock of 9/11 *was* the waking up of Americans that
they weren't immune from the repercussions of events overseas here "in
the homeland". BTW, *everyone* is a "possible terrorist supporter".
> >By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a chemical
> >bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really meaningful
> >connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin Laden proably
> >doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a secular than a Muslim
> >leader.
>
> You are right, lots of people can make chems and bios. But it's the
> guys who would use them or give them to others to use against us
> (terrorists) who are the ones that I worry about.
Obviously. But launching an invasion of hardly "worrying about"
something, especially when the evidence against the intentions of that
country is thin.
> >So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
> >take care of their own problems?
>
> What happened to "the middle path" where it's OK if good for the US
> and others? We aren't going to war for Israel. Israel is more than
> capable of taking care of itself. But if we get rid of Sadaam and it
> happens to help some allies, all the better.
>
>
> >I agree that Saddam is a bad guy, but I don't think he's "pure evil" or
> >anything. I think that image has been conjured by the U.S. in order to
> >justify its actions. (why did we not care about his "evilness" until he
> >did something which threatened *us*? [i.e. Kuwaiti oil])
>
> I sort of concluded that Sadaam had that evil thing going for him when
> I saw pictures of the dead Kurd villagers he gassed.
Seen any pictures of Kurdish villagers killed by the Turks recently?
Should we invade Turkey then? Why not?
> >Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
> >generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all the
> >dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a valid method
> >I think). As for communications between Hussein and the U.S. before the
> >invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look more into.
>
> I consider all of WWII part of Hitler's handiwork. Without Hitler,
> there isn't a European war. maybe a Pacific War, but not a European
> one. Actually, the number might be closer to 40 million. It's hard to
> know how many people Hitler killed and how many were Stalin's
> responsibility.
Yes but without WWI there wouldn't have been a WWII, without the Treat
of Versailles and a Great Depression the Nazis never would have been
voted into power, etc. History is far more complex than that.
> >Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
> >talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably aren't
> >as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis. The Germans
> >single-handedly took on most of the industrialized world and almost won.
> >That comparison is *way* overblown.
>
> In 1933, the Versailles Treaty still held back Germany military
> efforts. Hitler began his secret rearmament soon after gaining power.
> But 1933 Germany and 2002 Iraq are a valid military comparison. 1936
> germany is a different matter though and that's the point. I do not
> want Sadaam to reach 1936 german military lervels. But 1933 is a
> closer comparison. In fact, Iraq may even have a bit more manpower
> than Hitler did in 1933. The only advantage the Saudis have is in US
> technology. Turkey has a decent force too and could handle Iraq. Saudi
> Arabia probably could not. Israel has nukes, so they aren't even in
> Iraq's military stratosphere. In fact, it's the only reason Sadaam
> hasn't attacked Israel. Even without nukes, Israel's technology and
> training would trounce Sadaam.
Nazi Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world
militarily in WWII. The only reason they lost, again arguably, is
because they took on practically the entire world at the same time. Iraq
is *light-years* away from becoming the most powerful country in the
world militarily, a position which is occupied ironically by the U.S..
> >Hitler wasn't a painter, he drew sketches before he got into politics.
> >As if that comparison really had any meaning to it anyway. (Churchill
> >*did* like to paint, does that mean he was a "madman"?)
>
> It wasn't meant to be a complete anaylsis, just an interesting note -
> the idea that a madman could have an artistic side too.
>
>
> >Well that's why they're pushing for a seven-day thing. Let's see what
> >happens.
>
> I fully expect Sadaam to come up with an excuse for not allowing
> anything other than what Iraq specifies. He has in the past.
Maybe. I hope not.
> >One of the founding points of the United States is that decisions to go
> >to war are expressly kept *out* of the hands of the military, for the
> >obvious reason that military people have a tendency to seek military
> >solutions to everything. And again, I'm not disputing Saddam's treatment
> >of his own people. It's just the U.S. doesn't seem to actually care
> >about things like this unless they can use them to justify advancing
> >their own geopolitical self-interests.
>
> The ones pushing for a military strike are Bush and his
> administration. They are civilian, are they not? In any case, the idea
> of promoting common good in the world is one that has never been true.
> Not for any nation on earth. A nation-state basically exists to
> promote it's own self-interest. From the largest superpower to the
> smallest strip of dirt, every nation guides their conduct solely on
> their own self interest. Even when it helps others, it is still in
> support of their own self-interest. I refuse to except that it's OK
> for other nations to do this, but not the US simply because we are the
> biggest kid on the block.
I absolutely agree actually. That is exactly why first off I don't
accept any of this rhetoric about attacking Iraq to help the Kurds,
etc., it's all BS. Just like how Desert Storm was about "restoring
democracy to Kuwait". What a load of bull. Where we differ, again, is in
our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the U.S.. Personally I
think Americans are (justifiably) feeling vulnerable because of 9/11,
but extending that fear (unjustifiably IMO) to Iraq.
> >I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much more
> >involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much feistier when
> >they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't like their own
> >regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider invaders, as well
> >as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
>
> True, but do you think the people are going to die left and right to
> save Sadaam? Remember, like Hitler, their army (or at least their
> Republican Guard) swears loyalty to Saddam, not to Iraq. I saw some
> news org interview a supposed reservist in the outskirts of Baghdad.
> He said they are tired of war and if it comes, his family is sitting
> this one out. I suspect a lot of common Iraqis feel this way.
Actually to use your example taking personal oaths of loyalty to Hitler
didn't stop the German armed forces from fighting fanatically until the
very end of the war. Not that I expect the same level of resistance from
Iraqi troops, but I do think it will be somewhat of a different ball of
wax from Desert Storm.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
All towel headed freaks in the corner to die. More and more evidence
exists that Iraq gave support and training to the Al Queda....more and
more evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing
and the WTC 93 bombing....ooops. I guess Saddam never really stopped
fighting and we did thinking that dropping a few bombs on top of him
every now and again was gonna stop him. Oops my bad.
>Again you're confusing Iraq with Al Qaeda. The United States hasn't been
>*appeasing* Iraq in any sense of the word either, there have been
>periodic military interventions as well as strongly felt economic
>boycott ever since the end of the Gulf War. BTW I would appreciate it if
>you would stop referring to Arabs as "towel headed freaks".
Fuck those towel headed freaks...they dont deserve to be called
anything honorable. They are the worst sorts of scum....they
deliberately kill innocent men, women and children as their primary
targets. They are cowards who run when soldiers come and only feel
their religous fervor when they are facing women and children. Fuck
them to hell, those assholes taught McViegh and Nichols how to make a
bomb that those scum then put in front of a Fucking Nursery at the
Oklahoma Bomb site.....I mean shit why must we respect that sort of
scum behavior. I respect the Kamikazi far more because at least he had
the balls to face others who were armed. These punks run from armed
soldiers.
>No it isn't because the U.S. didn't attack Japan or Germany unilaterally.
What kind of drugs are you taking or havent you been paying attention.
Iraq attacked Kuwait in 90, they then made peace where they promised
to abide by all sorts of agreements that they then ignored. They
violated the terms of the deal that stopped the hostilities. Iraq has
been implicated in the attempted assasination of Former President
Bush, the Oklahoma bombing, the WTC 93 bombing....far from attacking
unilaterally we are actually 10 years too late in attacking. All
because of a corrupt President who didnt remember his most important
duty...protect the American Public.
>You really lost me here. Which (former) President has Saddam attempted
>to assassinate?
Former President Bush. I bet Saddam kinda knew Bush Jr. was gonna come
after him....you dont try and kill a persons father and get away with
it.
PAPA DOC
Dale Reeck
wrote:
>Seen any pictures of Kurdish villagers killed by the Turks recently?
>Should we invade Turkey then? Why not?
Actually, I have not. If they did, then they ahve a leadership willing
to discuss things and maybe change. Try doing that with Sadaam. Good
luck with that.
>Yes but without WWI there wouldn't have been a WWII, without the Treat
>of Versailles and a Great Depression the Nazis never would have been
>voted into power, etc. History is far more complex than that.
Yes, but Germany had a democracy before Hitler seized power. Had
Germany maintained it's course (or even if a less radical dictator
took over), the depression would have died itself out eventually and
Germany, like everyone else, would have recovered. WWII probably would
not have happened. War was always Hitler's goal. A lesser fanatic may
have avoided war. So, here si a case of one man truly changing the
course of history.
>Nazi Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world
>militarily in WWII. The only reason they lost, again arguably, is
>because they took on practically the entire world at the same time. Iraq
>is *light-years* away from becoming the most powerful country in the
>world militarily, a position which is occupied ironically by the U.S..
No, Germany did not get to the height of it's military power until
after 1936. But I am talking about 1933 Germany - a huge difference -
and 2002 Iraq. 1933 Germany was not allowed to have a large military
because of Versailles. That was one of Hitler's "campaign" points when
trying to get the chancelorship - rebuilding German military glory. He
then proceeded to covertly rebuild german military strength. It wasn't
until 1936 that the new, powerful German armed forces were revealed to
the world and people began to see just what they were up against.
1933 Germany and 2002 Iraq are two countries with similar military
strengths, look to be on the fringes (ie, other countries don't think
much of them as a potential power - although some may argue that point
about Germany), have fanatic, clut-based leadership, have huge
econonmic problems and are "victims" of others, ie, Jews for Germany
and the US for Iraq. Both counties even have a persecuted minority -
again, Jews for Germany and Kerds for Iraq. The comparisons just keep
going on.
Just as Germany become a military power in just 3-5 years, I do not
want to see Iraq do the same. At least not with Sadaam in power. Don't
ever assume that another Hitler can't happen. Saying "oh, how can you
possibly say Sadaam is going to be another Hitler, that's ridiculous,
there's no comparison between the two" is probably something similar
to what they said in 1933. "Oh, how can you say Hitler is going to
become another Napoleon, that's ridiculous, there's no comparison
between the two". Just as people didn't realize what a threat Hitler
would truly become back in 1933, the same thing is happening with
Sadaam in 2002.
They weren't joking when it was said that those who ignore history are
destined to repeat it. I mean, if you want Sadaam going on TV and
saying, yes, he is an evil guy who supports terrorism, before you are
willing to do something about it, then what is the point in even
studying history? If you require nearly a confession before you will
move, then our civilization is destined to suffer from acts of
barbarity for the rest of eternity.
>I absolutely agree actually. That is exactly why first off I don't
>accept any of this rhetoric about attacking Iraq to help the Kurds,
>etc., it's all BS. Just like how Desert Storm was about "restoring
>democracy to Kuwait". What a load of bull. Where we differ, again, is in
>our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the U.S.. Personally I
>think Americans are (justifiably) feeling vulnerable because of 9/11,
>but extending that fear (unjustifiably IMO) to Iraq.
Not to break this down too simply, but, the bottom line is, will the
people be better off with Sadaam or without him? I bet most people,
including most importantly, a majority of Iraqis, will answer without
him. Assuming the Iraqi people were allowed to actually speak out. So,
if it also obtains some of our goals too (see my point about
self-interest governing nations), then I can't argue against getting
rid of an unelected tyrant.
I use the same reasoning with Afghanistan. Sure it helped us out by
getting rid of a huge al Queda base of operations. But it also
liberated the women of Afghanistan, who were brutally treated by the
Taliban. I wouldn't have minded if we went in there just for that
reason. Granted, Islam doesn't put women in the highest regard in even
good circumstances always. But the treatment they got in the Taliban
goes against traditional Islamic teachings. Iran, ironically, has a
pretty decent record on women and minorities. I even saw where
Christians and Jews inside Iran have basic rights. But this is getting
off topic.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
>"Standing up to Saddam"? The U.S. is about a thousand times more
>powerful than Iraq. And it's not enough to simply defeat a country
>militarily to "help it". There's a lot more involved in "taking care" of
>a situation like that.
Yes and of all the nations in the world we are the best suited to
actually doing that since we have done it so well in the past. No
problem about the cost since the Iraqis who assume power will have at
their disposal the means to pay for the cost of the rehabilitation.
Besides its better to pay money to avert disaster then to allow it to
happen (small pox attack, nuke attack) then to pay for the clean up
and the inevitible attack. I think using cost as an excuse for not
attacking is stupid beyond belief and Im surprised that the Demoncrats
are actually that dumb.
>
>By "schoolyard" I meant the way people talk about war if it's some kind
>of fistfight...they don't talk realistically about the dead and wounded
>*we* will suffer.
We have all had a look at the dead and dying....our war has already
started and we have two choices, fight and die to win, or just sit and
die losing. Its an illusion to believe that we can just avoid the
fight and everything will continue as normal.
>I guess we differ in our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the
>U.S. I don't personally believe he has any plans on using WMD against
>the U.S.
>
The problem is you refuse to educate yourself as to the threat he
actually poses and this allows you to believe that we shouldnt attack
him. The information regarding the threat he poses to us is out there
for everyone to see....read and be educated.
>"If I know anything"? Whose ass have we stopped the Israelis from
>kicking, and do you think it really would have been a good idea for them
>to do so?
Actually this is beyond discussion. Its a fact that the only way for
that war to be over is for one side or the other to actually defeat
the other totally and then impose its terms on the other. Until that
happens they will just slowly bleed themselves. I suspect what will
happen is that the PLO will eventually get a WMD and attack with
it....that will be the trigger that ends this war. As either one or
the other will cease to exist. Harsh no doubt but I believe thats the
way it will happen. That the PLO, HAMAS and the other towel headed
freaks want to exterminate all the Israelis makes me wonder why Israel
is waiting to defend herself. She may wait too long.
>What makes you think there's always one individual who's responsible for
>everything? Sure if you had to pick one person Hitler's probably the
>guy, but history is much more complex than that.
Without Hitler WW2 wouldnt have happened. That makes him responsible.
>The point I was making, which you seem to pretend not to notice, is that
>when you attack people's homelands they fight for their country, not
>their "regime".
Oh you mean like the Afganis did..? Oh thats right they didnt. They
watched and clapped while the Taliban towelheaded freaks were run our
of dodge.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
David
>One of the problems with Europe is that they wait until after it's too
>late to do something about a problem.
I find that sentence intriguing. The whole of Europe is lumped together
as a single unit with at least one common characteristic. :)
Comments about Europe as an entity in the 1930s do not seem to me to
have any validity whatsoever. 'The trouble with Europe' indeed. Even
today when there is a European Union it seems to have little in common
regarding the 'war on terrorism' or much else regarding foreign affairs.
> Exhibit A is Adolf Hitler. Like
>Sadaam now, he was a two-bit dictator in 1933.
He had come to power in 1933 relatively legitimately after gaining a
significant vote in earlier elections. He then persuaded Hindenburg to
appoint him as Fuhrer and Chancellor and from then on he rapidly assumed
the powers of a dictator but with considerable popular support - at
least at first.
> He still was in 1936 but
>was gaining more and more power (and a bigger and bigger military).
>Instead of taking care of him then when European armies still had the
>upper hand, they thought they could be civilized and negotiate.
There was no way that Britain could have run a war in 1936 and was
scarcely in a position to do so in 1939. American aid helped us to hold
out until Hitler rashly declared war on the United States.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to <da...@dclf.demon.co.uk>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Haas
> Some of us think getting rid of Sadaam and standing up to these thugs is
> good for us and the rest of the world.
Woah, the western super-power "standing up" against a third-world country.
> Look at the biggest areas of chaos
> in the world and you'll find a dictator or religous extremists. Yep,
> taking care of that will be a GOOD thing.
"Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as usual, the US
will probably engage without thinking of the consequences. Which is
exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the first place ...
> Gread idea!!! Attack anyone who we think has WMD and we think will use it
> against us. Do you want royalties for the idea???
> As for Sadaam and Al Qaeda, ever hear the saying "The enemy of my enemy is
> my friend"????
Now that's what I call conclusive evidence.
>>So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting people
>>take care of their own problems?
>
> If you know anything, you know we've been holding the Israelis back from
> kicking ass before.
LOL. Last time your president tried to hold them back (when they first
moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon publicly thumbed his
nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
> there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
Hmm, oil?
> One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work, why didn't they
> before???
They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
CIA agents.
Dale Reeck
wrote:
>In article <lup7puo6adqjh4flj...@4ax.com>, Dale Reeck
><Dale...@compuserve.com> writes
>
>>One of the problems with Europe is that they wait until after it's too
>>late to do something about a problem.
>
>I find that sentence intriguing. The whole of Europe is lumped together
>as a single unit with at least one common characteristic. :)
When I refer to Europe, I refer mainly to UK, France and the Low
Countries. These countries did have a common characteristic in that a
strong Germany would be menacing to them. While Hitler had a soft spot
for the UK and at one point, even considered them an almost
brother-in-arms, he had no such love for France. France had the teeth
to coral Germany in 1933-1935, but by 1936 it was probably too late
and led to such nonsense as their dependence on the Maginot Line. The
same can be said for Iraq now. We can contain them now, but who knows
in 5 years what the situation will be. Iraq doesn't need an
overwhelming military buildup either. A few nukes or a bunch of BIO
weapons could be enough to tip the balance and make things very messy.
>He had come to power in 1933 relatively legitimately after gaining a
>significant vote in earlier elections. He then persuaded Hindenburg to
>appoint him as Fuhrer and Chancellor and from then on he rapidly assumed
>the powers of a dictator but with considerable popular support - at
>least at first.
Unfortunately, Hindenburg was weak and they thought they could control
Hitler. Once Hindenburg died, Germany's destiny was sealed.
But deviousness behind the scenes was a common trait between these
two. Hitler had the Stormtroopers (SA) conducting terror against
voters throughout Germany (which, ironically, he showed little
appreciation for with 1934's Night of the Long Knives, where the SA's
Ernst Roehm bought it).
Sadaam could match Hitler in terror. For instance, 1959's
assassination attempt against Iraqi military leader Kassem and the
1968 coup that brought the Baath Party to power. In fact, the only
legal thing the guy did was succeed al-Bakr, who was the Baath
chairman who led the original coup, when he died in 1979 (Sadaam was
his deputy). Of course, "legal" is a relative term since it occurred
as the result of a coup.
In any case, I see a lot of parallels between the two. I don't
entirely understand while people can't see the possibilities here in
what could happen - why they would rather clean up a big mess later
instead of a smaller one now.
>There was no way that Britain could have run a war in 1936 and was
>scarcely in a position to do so in 1939. American aid helped us to hold
>out until Hitler rashly declared war on the United States.
Actually, as I said, France was probably in a better position up until
1935, but not by 1936.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
>"Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as usual, the US
>will probably engage without thinking of the consequences. Which is
>exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the first place ...
You mean like the way we rehabilitated Germany and Japan?
>LOL. Last time your president tried to hold them back (when they first
>moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon publicly thumbed his
>nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
The problem is you think he actually wanted to hold the Israelis back.
I think he just wanted to LOOK like he was trying. I think he feels
about the PLO the same way the PLO feels about us in general. I still
remember those towel headed freaks dancing in the streets when we were
attacked.
>
>> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
>> there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
>
>Hmm, oil?
Oil...??? Whatever the fuck for...? We have more oil than we can use
right now...I live in Oil Country here in the states and we have all
sorts of wells capped off. The price of oil has DROPPED in real terms
over the course of the last 25 years. Exactly why do we need MORE
oil...to make the price drop farther?
>
>> One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work, why didn't they
>> before???
>
>They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
>CIA agents.
Yes and the only problem with that was the 101st Airborne should have
been back up to the CIA. Those towel headed freaks lost a war and we
let them off easy because they agreed to a bunch of terms that they
PROMPTLY began ignoring.
PAPA DOC
Dale Reeck
>
>"Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as usual, the US
>will probably engage without thinking of the consequences. Which is
>exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the first place ...
No, what brought us al Queda and all their terrorist buddies was the
UN screwing up the partition of Palistine in the late 1940's. Hey,
what do you know, there's that UN name coming up again. What a
surprise.
>
>They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
>CIA agents.
First, they did not work "quite well". Sadaam had so many
"Presidential palaces" that were off limits and played so many games,
making inspectors wait to inspect a site even thought they had legal
authority to do so, that it became a joke. One inspector noted that
while guards stalled them at the gates of one site, air recon could
actually see the Iraqis move stuff in trucks between buildings.
Second, good, I hope they were all CIA agents. Iraq lost the war.
Period. Yet Iraq was going to set the terms? If Iraq had cooperated
properly, we would not have needed CIA agents to see what was going
on.
I find it ironic that the US is accused of being arrogant, setting
it's own agenda without world regard etc, but when Iraq or another
country does it, the excuses as to why it's OK start flowing.
Dale Reeck
DOC Legrand) wrote:
>
>Yes and the only problem with that was the 101st Airborne should have
>been back up to the CIA. Those towel headed freaks lost a war and we
>let them off easy because they agreed to a bunch of terms that they
>PROMPTLY began ignoring.
Oh oh, you beat me to it :) I never understood how the coalition won
an overwhelming victory, yet it is Iraq that sets the terms and acts
like it won. I used to laugh at how Sadaam always claims he won the
war (they even have a "Victory over US" day). Now, I'm not so sure I'm
laughing anymore. He's right, we didn't win. At best, we tied.
I also agree about the oil. The US has decent reserves not to mention
untapped oil in Alaska. It's actually Europe (ironically) and Japan
that needs the oil and stable prices more than we do.
Rainer Haas
>>"Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as usual, the US
>>will probably engage without thinking of the consequences. Which is
>>exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the first place ...
>
> You mean like the way we rehabilitated Germany and Japan?
But then there is Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran/Iraq, Somalia. Don't
get me wrong, America deserves a lot of praise for what was achieved in
Germany and Japan after WWII. This was the result of visionary decisions
and excellent diplomacy. However, I'm afraid that the current US
administration isn't even in the same league as those statesmen were.
Where the Truman administration came up with the brilliant Marshall
plan, Bush offers "the axis of evil", "you're with us or against us" and
similar brilliant concepts ...
>>>Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
>>>there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
>>
>>Hmm, oil?
>
> Oil...??? Whatever the fuck for...? We have more oil than we can use
> right now...I live in Oil Country here in the states and we have all
> sorts of wells capped off. The price of oil has DROPPED in real terms
> over the course of the last 25 years. Exactly why do we need MORE
> oil...to make the price drop farther?
You may want to take a look at this:
http://www.bts.gov/transtu/indicators/Security/html/US_Dependence_on_Oil_Imports.html
The US is today more dependent on oil imports than ever.
>>>One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work, why didn't they
>>>before???
>>
>>They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
>>CIA agents.
>
>
> Yes and the only problem with that was the 101st Airborne should have
> been back up to the CIA. Those towel headed freaks lost a war and we
> let them off easy because they agreed to a bunch of terms that they
> PROMPTLY began ignoring.
This doesn't make any sense. Sending spys was not part of the terms.
Dale Reeck
>
>But then there is Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran/Iraq, Somalia. Don't
>get me wrong, America deserves a lot of praise for what was achieved in
>Germany and Japan after WWII. This was the result of visionary decisions
>and excellent diplomacy. However, I'm afraid that the current US
>administration isn't even in the same league as those statesmen were.
>Where the Truman administration came up with the brilliant Marshall
>plan, Bush offers "the axis of evil", "you're with us or against us" and
>similar brilliant concepts ...
Actually, I've been reading "American Caesar" about Douglas MacArthur.
While he is known by most with his "I shall return" speech, his
arrogance and of course being fired by Truman, I'm seeing that he was
quite a visionary in a number of ways. Of course, he WAS pretty
self-absorbant and self-centered, but also surprising engaging and
caring about a number of things. But truth be told, I'm pretty
impressed with him and the way he handled Japan. He was, in fact,
actually quite a liberal.
>
>This doesn't make any sense. Sending spys was not part of the terms.
Neither was ignoring the terms of the surrender, playing games with
inspectors or hiding materials. You use the tools available to you.
Sadaam wants to play games, he gets spies.
Dale Reeck
wrote:
>
>
>To me it seems like the Bush administration is desperately trying to
>find *any* connection between the two.
I see now that Turkey has seized some Uranium from some guys about 150
miles from the Iraqi border. Interesting.
Jon
> Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
What's that? A poster for the "World's Biggest Pussy" convention?
Dale Reeck
>
>> Carter, Annan, Schröder, Gore HURRA!
>
>What's that? A poster for the "World's Biggest Pussy" convention?
>
I liked Jimmy. He seemed fairly honest, which made him completely
unsuitable for politics. And Annan probably was mortified when he
heard he got the job as Sec. Gen. He probably was figuring out ays to
get out of it. Schroder and Gore are consumate politicians. Schroder
knew when to bail out on supporting Iraq combat. Now that he's
re-elected, I'm sure he will start considering Bush's proposals, you
watch. Gore reminds me of the kind of guy who worries if everyone
likes him. Not a bad guy, just wishy-washy.
JohnnyChemo
> You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path which
> is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or whoever it is
> we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum game.
Isn't that what we've been pursuing the past 10 years? Haven't we done
the inspector thing, as well as the negotiation thing as a result of
Desert Storm? The outcome was that Saddam wasn't negotiating in good
faith. Diplomatic solutions, considering his past record, don't seem
very promising.
Oliver Lü
pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
> No Im not confusing them Im binding them together where they belong.
> All towel headed freaks in the corner to die. More and more evidence
> exists that Iraq gave support and training to the Al Queda....more and
> more evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing
> and the WTC 93 bombing....ooops. I guess Saddam never really stopped
> fighting and we did thinking that dropping a few bombs on top of him
> every now and again was gonna stop him. Oops my bad.
Why not include Saudi Arabia among your "towel headed freaks" in the
corner then? I mean they're the very heart of Islam, much more than
Iraq. Why not just kill them all? You can scoot out from behind your
"virtual cockpit", after all, and lead the attacks because you're such a
big man, right?
> >Again you're confusing Iraq with Al Qaeda. The United States hasn't been
> >*appeasing* Iraq in any sense of the word either, there have been
> >periodic military interventions as well as strongly felt economic
> >boycott ever since the end of the Gulf War. BTW I would appreciate it if
> >you would stop referring to Arabs as "towel headed freaks".
>
> Fuck those towel headed freaks...they dont deserve to be called
> anything honorable. They are the worst sorts of scum....they
> deliberately kill innocent men, women and children as their primary
> targets. They are cowards who run when soldiers come and only feel
> their religous fervor when they are facing women and children. Fuck
> them to hell, those assholes taught McViegh and Nichols how to make a
> bomb that those scum then put in front of a Fucking Nursery at the
> Oklahoma Bomb site.....I mean shit why must we respect that sort of
> scum behavior. I respect the Kamikazi far more because at least he had
> the balls to face others who were armed. These punks run from armed
> soldiers.
I see you've bought completely into the racist stereotypes perpretrated
throughout the U.S. media...and you think that makes you a "patriot".
> >No it isn't because the U.S. didn't attack Japan or Germany unilaterally.
>
> What kind of drugs are you taking or havent you been paying attention.
> Iraq attacked Kuwait in 90, they then made peace where they promised
> to abide by all sorts of agreements that they then ignored. They
> violated the terms of the deal that stopped the hostilities. Iraq has
> been implicated in the attempted assasination of Former President
> Bush, the Oklahoma bombing, the WTC 93 bombing....far from attacking
> unilaterally we are actually 10 years too late in attacking. All
> because of a corrupt President who didnt remember his most important
> duty...protect the American Public.
I was referring to the fact that Japan and Germany either declared war
or attacked the U.S. directly....attacking Kuwait is not the same thing
as attacking the American homeland.
> >You really lost me here. Which (former) President has Saddam attempted
> >to assassinate?
>
> Former President Bush. I bet Saddam kinda knew Bush Jr. was gonna come
> after him....you dont try and kill a persons father and get away with
> it.
>
> PAPA DOC
More analogies from the OK Corral...
Oliver Lü
pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
> Another fool...
>
> >"Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as usual, the US
> >will probably engage without thinking of the consequences. Which is
> >exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the first place ...
>
> You mean like the way we rehabilitated Germany and Japan?
And the plans for this for Iraq entail what exactly? (Keeping in mind
both Japan and Germany were rebuilt as bulwarks against communism and to
become important trading partners for the American economy. Not exactly
pure altruism.)
> >LOL. Last time your president tried to hold them back (when they first
> >moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon publicly thumbed his
> >nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
>
> The problem is you think he actually wanted to hold the Israelis back.
> I think he just wanted to LOOK like he was trying. I think he feels
> about the PLO the same way the PLO feels about us in general. I still
> remember those towel headed freaks dancing in the streets when we were
> attacked.
>
> >
> >> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we weren't
> >> there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
> >
> >Hmm, oil?
>
> Oil...??? Whatever the fuck for...? We have more oil than we can use
> right now...I live in Oil Country here in the states and we have all
> sorts of wells capped off. The price of oil has DROPPED in real terms
> over the course of the last 25 years. Exactly why do we need MORE
> oil...to make the price drop farther?
Don't be naive. Energy supplies need to be secured years even decades
beforehand. Just because there's enough gas and oil right now doesn't
mean it's not a motive.
Oliver Lü
pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
> hehe...
>
> >"Standing up to Saddam"? The U.S. is about a thousand times more
> >powerful than Iraq. And it's not enough to simply defeat a country
> >militarily to "help it". There's a lot more involved in "taking care" of
> >a situation like that.
>
> Yes and of all the nations in the world we are the best suited to
> actually doing that since we have done it so well in the past. No
> problem about the cost since the Iraqis who assume power will have at
> their disposal the means to pay for the cost of the rehabilitation.
> Besides its better to pay money to avert disaster then to allow it to
> happen (small pox attack, nuke attack) then to pay for the clean up
> and the inevitible attack. I think using cost as an excuse for not
> attacking is stupid beyond belief and Im surprised that the Demoncrats
> are actually that dumb.
This again assumes that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the
U.S. is so great that it justifies an attack.
> >By "schoolyard" I meant the way people talk about war if it's some kind
> >of fistfight...they don't talk realistically about the dead and wounded
> >*we* will suffer.
>
> We have all had a look at the dead and dying....our war has already
> started and we have two choices, fight and die to win, or just sit and
> die losing. Its an illusion to believe that we can just avoid the
> fight and everything will continue as normal.
Again that's a complete misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I don't
think the struggle against (especially Al Qaeda-based) terrorism should
be stopped, just that launching an invasion of Iraq won't do much to
help that cause, if anything it might lead to more terrorism from
fanatic Arab Muslims who don't like the West.
> >I guess we differ in our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the
> >U.S. I don't personally believe he has any plans on using WMD against
> >the U.S.
> >
>
> The problem is you refuse to educate yourself as to the threat he
> actually poses and this allows you to believe that we shouldnt attack
> him. The information regarding the threat he poses to us is out there
> for everyone to see....read and be educated.
I think my level of education regarding these issues is fine, thank you.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot by definition.
> >"If I know anything"? Whose ass have we stopped the Israelis from
> >kicking, and do you think it really would have been a good idea for them
> >to do so?
>
> Actually this is beyond discussion. Its a fact that the only way for
> that war to be over is for one side or the other to actually defeat
> the other totally and then impose its terms on the other. Until that
> happens they will just slowly bleed themselves. I suspect what will
> happen is that the PLO will eventually get a WMD and attack with
> it....that will be the trigger that ends this war. As either one or
> the other will cease to exist. Harsh no doubt but I believe thats the
> way it will happen. That the PLO, HAMAS and the other towel headed
> freaks want to exterminate all the Israelis makes me wonder why Israel
> is waiting to defend herself. She may wait too long.
That's absolutely fine for you to believe. I just don't share your point
of view.
> >What makes you think there's always one individual who's responsible for
> >everything? Sure if you had to pick one person Hitler's probably the
> >guy, but history is much more complex than that.
>
> Without Hitler WW2 wouldnt have happened. That makes him responsible.
Without WWI WWW2 wouldn't have happened. And who was responsible for
WWI? (hint: it was an international system of alliances between
imperialistic European countries)
> >The point I was making, which you seem to pretend not to notice, is that
> >when you attack people's homelands they fight for their country, not
> >their "regime".
>
> Oh you mean like the Afganis did..? Oh thats right they didnt. They
> watched and clapped while the Taliban towelheaded freaks were run our
> of dodge.
>
> PAPA DOC
(snipped)
That's because for many of them the Taliban was a foreign government;
Saddam, no matter how bad he is, is at least an Iraqi himself.
Oliver Lü
Dale Reeck <Dale...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2002 18:28:30 GMT, Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Seen any pictures of Kurdish villagers killed by the Turks recently?
> >Should we invade Turkey then? Why not?
>
> Actually, I have not. If they did, then they ahve a leadership willing
> to discuss things and maybe change. Try doing that with Sadaam. Good
> luck with that.
Because they kill Kurds they have a leadership willing to discuss things?
> >Yes but without WWI there wouldn't have been a WWII, without the Treat
> >of Versailles and a Great Depression the Nazis never would have been
> >voted into power, etc. History is far more complex than that.
>
> Yes, but Germany had a democracy before Hitler seized power. Had
> Germany maintained it's course (or even if a less radical dictator
> took over), the depression would have died itself out eventually and
> Germany, like everyone else, would have recovered. WWII probably would
> not have happened. War was always Hitler's goal. A lesser fanatic may
> have avoided war. So, here si a case of one man truly changing the
> course of history.
Yes Hitler wanted war but the point I was making was that if conditions
hadn't been so bad he wouldn't have been in a position to make it
happen. German "democracy" in the 1920-30s was an extremely fragile
thing, the Kaiser only abdicated in 1918 and calling it a democracy in
any meaningful sense is somewhat disingenuous.
> >Nazi Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world
> >militarily in WWII. The only reason they lost, again arguably, is
> >because they took on practically the entire world at the same time. Iraq
> >is *light-years* away from becoming the most powerful country in the
> >world militarily, a position which is occupied ironically by the U.S..
>
> No, Germany did not get to the height of it's military power until
> after 1936. But I am talking about 1933 Germany - a huge difference -
> and 2002 Iraq. 1933 Germany was not allowed to have a large military
> because of Versailles. That was one of Hitler's "campaign" points when
> trying to get the chancelorship - rebuilding German military glory. He
> then proceeded to covertly rebuild german military strength. It wasn't
> until 1936 that the new, powerful German armed forces were revealed to
> the world and people began to see just what they were up against.
Yes but how on earth could Iraq ever even develop to the point of
strength of Nazi Germany?
> 1933 Germany and 2002 Iraq are two countries with similar military
> strengths, look to be on the fringes (ie, other countries don't think
> much of them as a potential power - although some may argue that point
> about Germany), have fanatic, clut-based leadership, have huge
> econonmic problems and are "victims" of others, ie, Jews for Germany
> and the US for Iraq. Both counties even have a persecuted minority -
> again, Jews for Germany and Kerds for Iraq. The comparisons just keep
> going on.
Your analogy
> Just as Germany become a military power in just 3-5 years, I do not
> want to see Iraq do the same. At least not with Sadaam in power. Don't
> ever assume that another Hitler can't happen. Saying "oh, how can you
> possibly say Sadaam is going to be another Hitler, that's ridiculous,
> there's no comparison between the two" is probably something similar
> to what they said in 1933. "Oh, how can you say Hitler is going to
> become another Napoleon, that's ridiculous, there's no comparison
> between the two". Just as people didn't realize what a threat Hitler
> would truly become back in 1933, the same thing is happening with
> Sadaam in 2002.
I understand that that's your belief. I just don't share it.
> They weren't joking when it was said that those who ignore history are
> destined to repeat it. I mean, if you want Sadaam going on TV and
> saying, yes, he is an evil guy who supports terrorism, before you are
> willing to do something about it, then what is the point in even
> studying history? If you require nearly a confession before you will
> move, then our civilization is destined to suffer from acts of
> barbarity for the rest of eternity.
Well that is one thing I'm not clear about--that Saddam supports
terrorists. I think that connection hasn't really been made yet.
> >I absolutely agree actually. That is exactly why first off I don't
> >accept any of this rhetoric about attacking Iraq to help the Kurds,
> >etc., it's all BS. Just like how Desert Storm was about "restoring
> >democracy to Kuwait". What a load of bull. Where we differ, again, is in
> >our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the U.S.. Personally I
> >think Americans are (justifiably) feeling vulnerable because of 9/11,
> >but extending that fear (unjustifiably IMO) to Iraq.
>
> Not to break this down too simply, but, the bottom line is, will the
> people be better off with Sadaam or without him? I bet most people,
> including most importantly, a majority of Iraqis, will answer without
> him. Assuming the Iraqi people were allowed to actually speak out. So,
> if it also obtains some of our goals too (see my point about
> self-interest governing nations), then I can't argue against getting
> rid of an unelected tyrant.
But who will replace him? Simply getting rid of bad leaders isn't
enough. And you may even be right about most Iraqis--however I don't
believe in spending hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Americans to help them. And I understand about
your argument about the conflation of self-interest and universal
interest--however again the point I was making is that I don't think
it's really in our best interest that much either.
> I use the same reasoning with Afghanistan. Sure it helped us out by
> getting rid of a huge al Queda base of operations. But it also
> liberated the women of Afghanistan, who were brutally treated by the
> Taliban. I wouldn't have minded if we went in there just for that
> reason. Granted, Islam doesn't put women in the highest regard in even
> good circumstances always. But the treatment they got in the Taliban
> goes against traditional Islamic teachings. Iran, ironically, has a
> pretty decent record on women and minorities. I even saw where
> Christians and Jews inside Iran have basic rights. But this is getting
> off topic.
Well you know the U.S. supported the Taliban government for many years,
and not just in the war against the Soviet Union.
Vern Pellerin
>In article <3d96168...@news.west.cox.net>,
> pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
>
>> No Im not confusing them Im binding them together where they belong.
>> All towel headed freaks in the corner to die. More and more evidence
>> exists that Iraq gave support and training to the Al Queda....more and
>> more evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing
>> and the WTC 93 bombing....ooops. I guess Saddam never really stopped
>> fighting and we did thinking that dropping a few bombs on top of him
>> every now and again was gonna stop him. Oops my bad.
>
>
>Why not include Saudi Arabia among your "towel headed freaks" in the
>corner then? I mean they're the very heart of Islam, much more than
>Iraq. Why not just kill them all? You can scoot out from behind your
Sure! After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Yep,
they're definately pumping out the hardcore Islam freaks. And it's about time
we stopped pretending that Saudi Arabia is our "friend". The country is
obviously our enemy, except for all that damn oil we buy from them. If we
didn't need the oil, they wouldn't be our supposed "friend" anymore. And the
more oil that Russia cranks out, the less we'll need them. Although we need
to become less dependent on oil all-together. A concept that Bush doesn't
seem to push. What was that? Did I just publically criticise my own
president? Yea, I can do that, without worrying about the U.S. military
busting down my door and hauling me off to prison for 10 years. :-) Good
thing I don't live in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or some other middle eastern
country. Otherwise I'd be in jail receiving beatings before I finished typing
the next newsgroup message.
>"virtual cockpit", after all, and lead the attacks because you're such a
>big man, right?
>
>
>> >Again you're confusing Iraq with Al Qaeda. The United States hasn't been
>> >*appeasing* Iraq in any sense of the word either, there have been
>> >periodic military interventions as well as strongly felt economic
>> >boycott ever since the end of the Gulf War. BTW I would appreciate it if
>> >you would stop referring to Arabs as "towel headed freaks".
>>
>> Fuck those towel headed freaks...they dont deserve to be called
>> anything honorable. They are the worst sorts of scum....they
>> deliberately kill innocent men, women and children as their primary
>> targets. They are cowards who run when soldiers come and only feel
>> their religous fervor when they are facing women and children. Fuck
>> them to hell, those assholes taught McViegh and Nichols how to make a
>> bomb that those scum then put in front of a Fucking Nursery at the
>> Oklahoma Bomb site.....I mean shit why must we respect that sort of
>> scum behavior. I respect the Kamikazi far more because at least he had
>> the balls to face others who were armed. These punks run from armed
>> soldiers.
>
>
>I see you've bought completely into the racist stereotypes perpretrated
>throughout the U.S. media...and you think that makes you a "patriot".
Obviously you clearly know NOTHING about the U.S. media ! ! ! You must have
NEVER, EVER seen so much as one single broadcast from U.S. T.V. It's so
politically correct it makes me wanna puke! The media never bashes the middle
east. Honestly, it would be really refreshing if the mainstream U.S. media
started to show what those middle eastern countries are really like. The lack
of human rights are attrocious, and the extreme religous hate monger zealots
are being cranked out by the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.
Vern Pellerin
>In article <3d961a0d...@news.west.cox.net>,
> pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
>
>> hehe...
>>
>> >"Standing up to Saddam"? The U.S. is about a thousand times more
>> >powerful than Iraq. And it's not enough to simply defeat a country
>> >militarily to "help it". There's a lot more involved in "taking care" of
>> >a situation like that.
>>
>> Yes and of all the nations in the world we are the best suited to
>> actually doing that since we have done it so well in the past. No
>> problem about the cost since the Iraqis who assume power will have at
>> their disposal the means to pay for the cost of the rehabilitation.
>> Besides its better to pay money to avert disaster then to allow it to
>> happen (small pox attack, nuke attack) then to pay for the clean up
>> and the inevitible attack. I think using cost as an excuse for not
>> attacking is stupid beyond belief and Im surprised that the Demoncrats
>> are actually that dumb.
>
>
>This again assumes that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the
>U.S. is so great that it justifies an attack.
Anyone with 2 ounces of common sense knows that this is a GIVEN. Sadam wants
anyone and everyone in the U.S. dead so badly that he's foaming at the mouth
for more chances. 9/11 was just the start. And from the growing evindence,
perhaps Oklahoma was the real start of his revenge.
Chuck C.
@news.online.de:
> Chuck C. wrote:
>
>> Some of us think getting rid of Sadaam and standing up to
these thugs
>> is good for us and the rest of the world.
>
> Woah, the western super-power "standing up" against a
third-world
> country.
>
Some would say its about time. The fact that we are a
superpower and
haven't just turned Baghdad into a parking lot is a
testament to our
patience. But, it's starting to wear thin.
>> Look at the biggest areas of chaos
>> in the world and you'll find a dictator or religous
extremists. Yep,
>> taking care of that will be a GOOD thing.
>
> "Taking care" takes a lot more than dropping bombs. But as
usual, the
> US will probably engage without thinking of the
consequences. Which is
> exactly what brought us Saddam, Al Quaeda etc. in the
first place ...
The consequences like a bio/chem attack?? Sorry, when the
gun seems
pointed at you I'll excuse you protecting your own interest.
>
>> Gread idea!!! Attack anyone who we think has WMD and we
think will
>> use it against us. Do you want royalties for the idea???
>> As for Sadaam and Al Qaeda, ever hear the saying "The
enemy of my
>> enemy is my friend"????
>
> Now that's what I call conclusive evidence.
>
Re read the thread. Oliver seems to think that since
Saddaam and Al
Qaeda aren't politically identical, they won't band up
against us. I
disagree.
>>>So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to
letting people
>>>take care of their own problems?
>>
>> If you know anything, you know we've been holding the
Israelis back
>> from kicking ass before.
>
> LOL. Last time your president tried to hold them back
(when they first
> moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon
publicly thumbed
> his nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
Do you not think the Israelis wouldn't have rolled over the
PLO etc. if
we weren't holding them back. None of this halfway crap, I
mean REALLY
rolling over them. Not to mention Desert Storm 1.
>
>> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis
if we
>> weren't there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
>
> Hmm, oil?
And Airbases we built for them now tentatively being off-
limits. Ok, no
biggie, seems like some of the neighbors don't find us too
bothersome.
>
>> One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work,
why didn't
>> they before???
>
> They did work quite well before some of the inspectors
turned out to
> be CIA agents.
>
Win the war and you can bitch about who's in your country
looking for
stuff. Have you heard some of the inspectors stating
reciently that
basically you HAVE to have the Iraqis' assistance in finding
WMD. Do
you trust them (the Iraqis?)
Chuck
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Chuck C.
> In article <Xns9297704DCE3C...@63.240.76.16>,
> "Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to interupt...but some of this just flies in the face of logic.
>>
>> Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net> wrote in
>> news:oliverlu-3BEDE2...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net:
>>
>> snip
>> >
>> >
>> > You seem to ignore the possibility that there is some middle path
>> > which is good for *both* the U.S. and the rest of the world (or
>> > whoever it is we're dealing with). Life is not always a zero-sum
>> > game.
>>
>> Some of us think getting rid of Sadaam and standing up to these thugs
>> is good for us and the rest of the world. Look at the biggest areas
>> of chaos in the world and you'll find a dictator or religous
>> extremists. Yep, taking care of that will be a GOOD thing.
>
>
> "Standing up to Saddam"? The U.S. is about a thousand times more
> powerful than Iraq. And it's not enough to simply defeat a country
> militarily to "help it". There's a lot more involved in "taking care"
> of a situation like that.
>
>
Yep, and its about time we started acting like a superpower. You gotta
take out the trash before you start the other stuff, silly.
>> snip
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually we do seem to think we can launch an attack and remain
>> > untouched by the consequences. The whole schoolyard fight kind of
>> > way it's being discussed reveals that.
>> >
>>
>> No, we just worry about the bigger consequences if we dont.
>> Schoolyard fight....look, we helped in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia and
>> countless other places and what did it get us. Well, screw that from
>> now on. We'll still help out, but mess with the bull, get the horns.
>
>
> By "schoolyard" I meant the way people talk about war if it's some
> kind of fistfight...they don't talk realistically about the dead and
> wounded *we* will suffer.
>
War is not to be taken lightly, but you need to think realistically
about the dead and wounded *we* will suffer if the world continues on
the current trend it is on, ie not standing up to people who wish you
dead. This is the way things are...not the way you'd like them to be.
>
>> snip
>> >
>> > By that logic we could attack anyone, since anyone can make a
>> > chemical bomb. And I don't think Bush has made the case for really
>> > meaningful connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In fact, bin
>> > Laden proably doesn't even like Hussein because he's more of a
>> > secular than a Muslim leader.
>>
>> Gread idea!!! Attack anyone who we think has WMD and we think will
>> use it against us. Do you want royalties for the idea???
>
>
> I guess we differ in our estimation of the threat Saddam poses to the
> U.S. I don't personally believe he has any plans on using WMD against
> the U.S.
>
I have no doubt the coward wouldn't openly use it against us.
But...some friends or "associates"??? Ever consider that??? As others
have pointed out, if some weirdo cult can do it in the Tokyo subway,
someone could do it here. Once again, the way things are..not the way
you'd like them to be.
>
>> As for Sadaam and Al Qaeda, ever hear the saying "The enemy of my
>> enemy is my friend"????
>
>
> Yes, I have, but I'm not sure who you're referring to with this
> example. BTW that's exactly the philosophy the U.S. used when it
> supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
>
Refering to?? Comprehension problems??? I'll go slow since mental
clarity isn't your strong suit. You state (paraphrasing here) Saddam
and Al Qaeda aren't "allies". But they both hate us...that is we are
their enemies. Hence, the enemy (Us) of my Enemy (Al Qaeda) is my
(Saddam's) friend. Or simpler....they will use each other for a common
purpose...hurting US.
>
>> > Plus, there are other
>> >> targets besides the US - the Israelis, other allies and even his
>> >> own people.
>> >
>> >
>> > So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to letting
>> > people take care of their own problems?
>> >
>>
>> If you know anything, you know we've been holding the Israelis back
>> from kicking ass before.
>
>
> "If I know anything"? Whose ass have we stopped the Israelis from
> kicking, and do you think it really would have been a good idea for
> them to do so?
>
Desert Storm 1, Scud attacks. Ever heard of it???
>
>> >snip
>> >
>> >
>> > Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
>> > generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all
>> > the dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a
>> > valid method I think). As for communications between Hussein and
>> > the U.S. before the invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look
>> > more into.
>>
>> Not a valid method??? Ask the wounded, or the surviving family if
>> they think its valid. If he's not to blame for the dead in Europe,
>> who is???
>
>
> What makes you think there's always one individual who's responsible
> for everything? Sure if you had to pick one person Hitler's probably
> the guy, but history is much more complex than that.
OK, lets flip that around, Mr. History-is-Complex. Who is responsible
for those deaths. Why were all those troops in Europe?? Why all those
cities bombed?? Somehow, I suspect you wont have an answer.
>
>
>> >> In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities
>> >> with Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly,
>> >> killing their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal
>> >> (barely) means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries
>> >> with similar military strengths.
>> >
>> >
>> > Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
>> > talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably
>> > aren't as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis.
>> > The Germans single-handedly took on most of the industrialized
>> > world and almost won. That comparison is *way* overblown.
>> >
>>
>> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we
>> weren't there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
>
>
> That still doesn't mean it was anything to Nazi Germany had.
> Conquering Saudi Arabia is a far cry from conquering continental
> Europe. And what makes you think Saddam has *any* designs on Saudi
> Arabia anyway? (that seems to be one of those assumptions that gets
> thrown around without anyone ever examining it) Just because he threw
> some Scuds at it while U.N. forces were stationed there, getting ready
> to attack his army?
>
Dont know, dont really care about any designs. You're the one who
seemed to think Iraq wasn't as powerful (militarily) as the Saudis. I
think thats just another demonstration of your ignorance.
I'm not willing to wait until a nuke or Bio/Chem attack. I have no
doubt people sharing your views would be the first to blame the
administration for not having perfect intel if it did happen and not
preventing it. Well, Saddam has ignored agreements he made 10 years ago
so I think we have all the authority we need. You seem to feel we have
to reinvent the wheel. I don't mind asking the UN for help, but I'm not
against ignoring them if they prove to be as irrelevent as they have
been.
>
>> >> The problems that caused thousands of Iraqis to flee their
>> >> positions during the Gulf War still exist. I wouldn't count on the
>> >> regular forces to be of much use. Republican Guard units would be
>> >> the most likely to remain loyal, but even holed up in Baghdad,
>> >> there wouldn't be an immediate need to go into there or Tikrit,
>> >> the other Sadaam stronghold. It would not be unconceivable for the
>> >> US to wait them out. After all, even a loyal army gets hungry. But
>> >> who knows what tactics will be used.
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree that it won't be WWIII or anything, but it *will* be much
>> > more involved than Desert Storm, IMO. People tend to get much
>> > feistier when they're defending their homelands. Even if they don't
>> > like their own regime, there's a tendency to fight against outsider
>> > invaders, as well as the problems involved with assaulting cities.
>>
>> Like all those surrendering troups during Desert Storm 1? I'm not
>> saying I'm looking forward to urban warfare, but I think you
>> overestimate the majority of Iraqis willingness to defend this
>> regieme.
>
>
> The point I was making, which you seem to pretend not to notice, is
> that when you attack people's homelands they fight for their country,
> not their "regime".
>
>
You "pretend not to notice" that this didn't happen in Afganistan, and
didn't happen in Desert Storm 1. Sure, some of that might change, but
I'm willing to bet most will stay in their homes and wait it out.
>> Wake up and smell the coffee, it's been brewing for awhile.
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>
>
> Maybe you should switch to decaf.
Maybe you should lighten up on the weed, or alcohol, or whatever.
Remember, the way things are...not the way you want them to be.
Oh, and nice job ignoring the fact that Iraq has refused real
inspections.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0902/28iraq.html
How does this jive with your statement "Well that's why they're pushing
for a seven-day thing. Let's see what happens."
Chuck
Chuck C.
@news1.news.adelphia.net:
This is what drives me absolutely freakin crazy. Saddaam has lied,
cheated, ignored ever since the end of Desert Storm. Yet, all the
appeasers want to act like were at square one. I'm supprized Kofi didn't
announce he'd achieved "Peace in our time" when he got the letter from
Iraq.
Rainer Haas
> Some would say its about time. The fact that we are a
> superpower and
> haven't just turned Baghdad into a parking lot is a
> testament to our
> patience. But, it's starting to wear thin.
This is one of those statements that makes the world really like "you".
> The consequences like a bio/chem attack?? Sorry, when the
> gun seems
> pointed at you I'll excuse you protecting your own interest.
What Bush is proposing is analog to shooting a guy because he *could*
have a gun under his coat, without even trying to search him first.
Texas cowboy style, I guess.
>>moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon
> > publicly thumbed
>>his nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
>
> Do you not think the Israelis wouldn't have rolled over the
> PLO etc. if
> we weren't holding them back. None of this halfway crap, I
> mean REALLY rolling over them.
They don't "really roll over them" because they know this would cause an
escalation in the region that Israel wouldn't survive, even with all
those nice american toys.
> And Airbases we built for them now tentatively being off-
> limits. Ok, no
> biggie, seems like some of the neighbors don't find us too
> bothersome.
Sure, you built airbases "for them" out of pure altruism.
> Win the war and you can bitch about who's in your country
> looking for stuff. Have you heard some of the inspectors stating
> reciently that
> basically you HAVE to have the Iraqis' assistance in finding
> WMD.
I have seen that before 1998 the inspectors were quite effective in
finding and dismantling large stockpiles of weapons. Why is Bush opposed
to continuing this successful work?
Allan Mayer
>They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
>CIA agents.
And if true, why does that matter ????? Because the Iraqi's had
something more to hide ?????
The un weapons inspectors had little, to no freedom to search
where they wanted to before, what makes you think they ever worked
in the first place ??????? What makes you think they will work now ???
What does that tell you about how effective they are ??????????????
Why are you so anti American ???? Because we have helped out
people around the world before, but we do expect something in return ???
Like the countries we help to listen to us ?? Is that so wrong ????
Because we have to wealth and power in the world now, and your country
dosnt ?????? Because we pay more to the un than anyone else ????
According to their bookeeping we owe $$$, but look at all the huminatarian
help we give, that the un WONT allow to be counted to our un debt !!!!!
All the SAR work, and refugee help we do, but to the un, that dosnt count....
But it does matter to the un that they get new very expensive offices,
and we pay for the transition to expensive hotel suites while the new
building goes up......
WE should kick the un out of America, and I bet that if we did, it would
fade away to nothingness......
Without the USA, their would be no un !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny it seems that the rest of the world loves the US when things go
wrong and they need our help. Funny how much they hate us afterward...
We should become isolationist again, and see how the rest of the world
makes out without us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Allan
http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
David
<Dale...@compuserve.com> writes
>Countries.
That is entirely different definition of Europe!
> These countries did have a common characteristic in that a
>strong Germany would be menacing to them. While Hitler had a soft spot
>for the UK and at one point, even considered them an almost
>brother-in-arms, he had no such love for France. France had the teeth
>to coral Germany in 1933-1935, but by 1936 it was probably too late
>and led to such nonsense as their dependence on the Maginot Line.
That is better but even then there was no real consensus among all the
countries although you are right about the countries that were worried
about Hitler. One point was that some people thought that the Versailles
treaty had been too harsh (they were probably correct) and were
sympathetic to Hitler's first grabs at land that had been Germany's. The
anti-war groups in 1937/38 were just as great as they are now.
> The
>same can be said for Iraq now. We can contain them now, but who knows
>in 5 years what the situation will be. Iraq doesn't need an
>overwhelming military buildup either. A few nukes or a bunch of BIO
>weapons could be enough to tip the balance and make things very messy.
>
Correct but we don't know how crazy Saddam is. To launch a missile at
the West would be to court immediate retaliation but is he that foolish?
I recall that the nuclear stalemate stopped what were considered to be
much worse threats in the Cold War.
We were very concerned about gas attacks on Britain early in WW2. Every
single person in the country had their own gas masks and had to carry
them everywhere on pain of prosecution. But it never happened.
>
>>He had come to power in 1933 relatively legitimately after gaining a
>>significant vote in earlier elections. He then persuaded Hindenburg to
>>appoint him as Fuhrer and Chancellor and from then on he rapidly assumed
>>the powers of a dictator but with considerable popular support - at
>>least at first.
>
>Unfortunately, Hindenburg was weak and they thought they could control
>Hitler. Once Hindenburg died, Germany's destiny was sealed.
>
Indeed.
>But deviousness behind the scenes was a common trait between these
>two.
Certainly, as it has been with many ruthless rulers in the past.
>
>In any case, I see a lot of parallels between the two. I don't
>entirely understand while people can't see the possibilities here in
>what could happen - why they would rather clean up a big mess later
>instead of a smaller one now.
>
I think many people, like me, see the possibilities, but we lack clear
information and have less confidence in our own leader's than we once
did. Possibilities are easy to imagine but the best strategy is
difficult to choose. Which choices offer the least risk to the long
term? I suspect that no one knows.
>
>>There was no way that Britain could have run a war in 1936 and was
>>scarcely in a position to do so in 1939. American aid helped us to hold
>>out until Hitler rashly declared war on the United States.
>
>Actually, as I said, France was probably in a better position up until
>1935, but not by 1936.
>
Yes, that is true, but you did not mention France in the message I
responded to. In the event the French armies failed to use the strength
they had.
I have just been reading a book about the occupation of the Channel
Islands. Hitler's obsession with making the islands into his version of
Gibraltar kept a whole division out of WW2 to the very end! It also took
significant resources that could have made the Atlantic Wall more
formidable. When it turned out that they had no tanks in the Channel
islands they were sent a few captured French ones!
Rainer Haas
>>They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
>>CIA agents.
>
> And if true, why does that matter ????? Because the Iraqi's had
> something more to hide ?????
It is true, they admitted it. And it was superfluous and extremely
stupid by the US administration to give Saddam such an excellent excuse
to disrupt the inspections.
> The un weapons inspectors had little, to no freedom to search
> where they wanted to before, what makes you think they ever worked
> in the first place ???????
Hm, the huge pile of weapons they found and dismantled?
> Why are you so anti American ???? Because we have helped out
> people around the world before, but we do expect something in return ???
> Like the countries we help to listen to us ?? Is that so wrong ????
Sure, everybody who doesn't share your opinion is anti-American. People
of my country have died helping the US in the war against terror in
Afghanistan, BTW.
> Because we have to wealth and power in the world now, and your country
> dosnt ?????? Because we pay more to the un than anyone else ????
In fact, the US refused to pay most of their dues so far.
> According to their bookeeping we owe $$$, but look at all the huminatarian
> help we give, that the un WONT allow to be counted to our un debt !!!!!
In relation to the GDP, the USA doesn't give particularly much
humanitarian aid.
> All the SAR work, and refugee help we do, but to the un, that dosnt count....
You know, America is not the only country that does such things. E.g. my
country takes more refugees each year than any other western country,
even though it's much smaller than the US. We also sent firefighters and
rescue personel to New York after Sept. 11, and have the largest troop
contingent in the peace-keeping forces in Bosnia and Afghanistan. And we
still pay our dues.
> But it does matter to the un that they get new very expensive offices,
> and we pay for the transition to expensive hotel suites while the new
> building goes up......
> WE should kick the un out of America, and I bet that if we did, it would
> fade away to nothingness......
> Without the USA, their would be no un !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go on pounding your chest if it makes you feel better.
PAPADOC
>Why not include Saudi Arabia among your "towel headed freaks" in the
>corner then? I mean they're the very heart of Islam, much more than
>Iraq. Why not just kill them all? You can scoot out from behind your
>"virtual cockpit", after all, and lead the attacks because you're such a
>big man, right?
We are getting to them all...dont worry. The problem is some of you
thought that Bush was Clinton and that when he said things like
"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government
that supports them." and this
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated.' and this
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to
terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make:
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Bush is NOT like Clinton...thank god. He didnt send a fucking 2
million dollar missle into a 10 dollar Tent to hit a camel in the ass
then call it quits.
Saudi Arabia is definitely on notice that they are not favored. Notice
how we started moving our air base away from them.....we know they
fund terrorists. They will stop or die.
>I see you've bought completely into the racist stereotypes perpretrated
>throughout the U.S. media...and you think that makes you a "patriot".
No I came to this conclusion all by my lonesome after reading and
watching these towel headed murdering scum. They are NOT honorable,
they celebrate killing a mother and children as if this is some great
accomplishment. Islam is not that enemy the Jihadist are....and these
are the peopel we will run down all over the globe whether they run
alone or run countries. What makes me a patriot is working as much as
I can to help in any way I can to prevent the harm they have planned.
>I was referring to the fact that Japan and Germany either declared war
>or attacked the U.S. directly....attacking Kuwait is not the same thing
>as attacking the American homeland.
Yup sometimes is wise to not wait till the enemy is in your house
before you neutralize him. In this day and age its a matter of life or
death.
>More analogies from the OK Corral...
More drivel from the uninformed Left.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
believe that the US was gonna be attacked by either a Small Pox or
other bio terror attack. Would you be complacent...or would you be a
little freaked out...?
I wouldnt want to know what Bush knows...because he is obviously very
worried or he wouldnt be pushing this so hard. I have 2 wonderful
girls and another on the way....the world is getting alot more scary
than it was during the Soviet period because these freaks actually
will pull the trigger.
PAPA DOC
>
>Personally I think Bush's blood lust for war is a little strange and
>ill timed. It is totally turning the world against us.
PAPADOC
>This again assumes that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the
>U.S. is so great that it justifies an attack.
Actually I believe that we are actually in a race to see who gets to
the ring first. We have alot of evidence gathering that Saddam has
already pulled the trigger on a few events...there is nothing at all
to make anyone think he wont again.
>Again that's a complete misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I don't
>think the struggle against (especially Al Qaeda-based) terrorism should
>be stopped, just that launching an invasion of Iraq won't do much to
>help that cause, if anything it might lead to more terrorism from
>fanatic Arab Muslims who don't like the West.
Actually the Schoolyard scenario is apt but its obvious what your
reaction to that scenario might be. Its ok Im not calling you a coward
because actually backing down or avoiding confrontation is the way
that popular culture teachs one to behave. But this actually emboldens
the Towel Headed Freaks.....they are living in the 8th century. When
one of them gets in your face backing down is your worst option. Let
the Scum Murderer himself answer....
"As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American
soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper
tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his
army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all
that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it
destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was
vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up
dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their
families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of
world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it
forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and
disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers."
You back down to these people like Clinton did and it just makes them
stronger...you must defeat them in all their fields...shame them
before their brothers mothers and fathers. The Arab Street will thank
us for ridding the world of these thuggish governments. First Iraq
then Iran then Syria then the Saudis....then whoever else doesnt want
to end their thuggish behavior.
>I think my level of education regarding these issues is fine, thank you.
>Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot by definition.
No your level of education is severely lacking because you didnt even
realize that people were connecting Saddam to Bin Laden and thats
crucial...whether you agree that the evidence is there or not by not
knowing it exists means you arent educated about this issue.
>
>That's absolutely fine for you to believe. I just don't share your point
>of view.
Hamas is very clear about wanting to exterminate Israel...is that what
you dont believe? Or do you not believe that even the PLO's stated
goal is the elimination of Israel...? Ask yourself this...if the PLO
was just interested in gaining back the land lost in the 73 war why
were they formed before the land was lost...???
>Without WWI WWW2 wouldn't have happened. And who was responsible for
>WWI? (hint: it was an international system of alliances between
>imperialistic European countries)
Bullshit answer...post modernist bullshit doesnt work on me Im too old
and have too much experience with reality to believe that crap. That
the terms of the WW1 Treaty were terrible is beyond dispute. That
Germany's only course was war is bullshit.
>That's because for many of them the Taliban was a foreign government;
>Saddam, no matter how bad he is, is at least an Iraqi himself.
When we liberate Iraq and Iran watch the people. The love of self
determination is the same for all people..
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
thinking...not something completely new but a return to old values
that mean alot to us.
>However, I'm afraid that the current US
>administration isn't even in the same league as those statesmen were.
>Where the Truman administration came up with the brilliant Marshall
>plan, Bush offers "the axis of evil", "you're with us or against us" and
>similar brilliant concepts ...
Yup identifying the evil ones and letting governments know they have
to choose is a great idea. Whats wrong with forcing a governmnet to
acknowledge they have to make a choice..?
>You may want to take a look at this:
>http://www.bts.gov/transtu/indicators/Security/html/US_Dependence_on_Oil_Imports.html
>The US is today more dependent on oil imports than ever.
Irrelevent...the price of oil shows that supply is in over abundance.
A price that hasnt risen in 25 years doesnt mean to me that we have to
worry. Just as much as we need to use it they need to sell it. Embargo
for a bit...they die faster than we do. Then we uncap all these wells,
drill in some areas and tell them to piss off.
>This doesn't make any sense. Sending spys was not part of the terms.
They LOST the fucking war....we send spies to make sure they are
abiding by the terms of the agreement. The problem became when we
found out they werent and we did nothing about it. They have NOT
abided by the terms of the SURRENDER since they surrendered and we
have dont nothing about it....Saddam has continued to attack us.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
havent earned what they are giving away...its a sickness most often
seen in young rich shits.
>And the plans for this for Iraq entail what exactly? (Keeping in mind
>both Japan and Germany were rebuilt as bulwarks against communism and to
>become important trading partners for the American economy. Not exactly
>pure altruism.)
No doubt as a business man I want my customers healthy and
happy...makes them want to spend the money they create. You probably
dont understand that money is created do you. The plans for the
rehabilitation of Iraq are in action....or do you believe that you
deserve to hear the plan before its put into play.
>Don't be naive. Energy supplies need to be secured years even decades
>beforehand. Just because there's enough gas and oil right now doesn't
>mean it's not a motive.
Nonsense that alturism of yours makes you unable to understand what
actually drives the market. They have something they want to sell we
have money to buy...they die alot faster than us if they dont sell
their oil.
PAPA DOC
PAPADOC
Its a war against those who will attack us...you dont feel the need
because you arent threatened by a WMD attack we are. Bad thing to
threaten us with an attack it makes us all nervous and when we get all
nervour we have a marvelous military that will calm us down.
Yea inspections worked so great that we had to hear it from Saddams
brother in Law that he had a bunch of material for a Nuke. Its
absolutely absurd to think that going around a country with a
government doing all it can to avoid being found out will result in
anything except a crucial delay that might cost us a city.
No thanks
PAPA DOC
>This is one of those statements that makes the world really like "you".
PAPADOC
gotten away with it...Bush is an entirely different matter and Im
afraid Shroder doesnt know a real Texan too well.
PAPA DOC
Dr Oddness Killtroll
"Oliver Lü" scawled. thoughtlessly:
> And the plans for this for Iraq entail what exactly? (Keeping in mind
> both Japan and Germany were rebuilt as bulwarks against communism and to
> become important trading partners for the American economy.
Ummmm....
The Marshall Plan wasnt exactly set in stoner either, on Dec 7 '41, or 42, or 43,
or 44, for that matter.
> Not exactly
> pure altruism.)
So, even if we DO act in a mannert which benifits the millions of CIVILIANS
involved, and creates a stable society, you endite because there is some elememet
of self interest involved.
Typically liberal (less-than) half thought out bull shit. Inconsistent even, with
your ouw (not so well understood) stated, or implied, beliefs.
Here are some facts you SHOULD know, but dont.
1. Both Japan and Germany were large trading partners of the US before 7 Dec '41
(remember the OIL embargo?)
2. The ideological foundations of Naziiism, and Feudal-Facism, were REMOVED from
the political realm entirely by the US. After all, who do you think made it
illegal to place Swastikas on ANYTHING (including simulated A/c in the current
day) from that day to this.
3. Stability benifits the US, and everyone else.
And, finally, isnt self interest the basis for your position, such as it is? You
would benifit from the policies that you espouse, in that you beleive that it
would not lead to war, and less advantaged people would be spared the problems
associated with what you disagree with.
So, dont condemn folks for acting in self interest. Its the way you act. Instead,
observe the benifits of such actions.
This is where you fall down, Ollie. You're incapable of doing so, because of
bias, and an immature understanding of issues geo-political.
> Don't be naive. Energy supplies need to be secured years even decades
> beforehand.
<chuckle>
It aint about oil, ollie. What else is going on in the ME that would warrant
world wide attention. And dont say "Paletine"...
> Just because there's enough gas and oil right now doesn't
> mean it's not a motive.
It isnt. Your inability to grasp not woth standing...
> > >> One question, just one: if inspections were gonna work, why didn't they
> > >> before???
> > >
> > >They did work quite well before some of the inspectors turned out to be
> > >CIA agents.
> >
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet you're serious!!!!
Does you mother let you cross the street alone????
> > Yes and the only problem with that was the 101st Airborne should have
> > been back up to the CIA. Those towel headed freaks lost a war and we
> > let them off easy because they agreed to a bunch of terms that they
> > PROMPTLY began ignoring.
> >
> > PAPA DOC
PD is right.
Listen to him.
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Rainer Haas wrote:
> Allan Mayer wrote:
>
>
> It is true, they admitted it.
Is this so? Post some proof.
> And it was superfluous and extremely
> stupid by the US administration to give Saddam such an excellent excuse
> to disrupt the inspections.
<Chuckle>
Excuse?
Its about will, silly. He had it, we didnt. Your attitude exemplifies the reason
why we didnt have the will....
> Hm, the huge pile of weapons they found and dismantled?
Hmmmmm....
How about the huge piles they DIDNT find? ALL the inspectors (except Ridder, he's
gone off the deep end) indicate that there was more to be found...
> Sure, everybody who doesn't share your opinion is anti-American.
No. But you are now.
> People
> of my country have died helping the US in the war against terror in
> Afghanistan, BTW.
Salute to them, and your country. No thanks to you, though.
> In fact, the US refused to pay most of their dues so far.
Hehehehehehe...
The ususal UN nonsense. We STILL pay more than anyone else. UN, NATO, our own
defense. You guys like 7 weeks garaunteed vacay a year, and other such socialist
niceties. You've forgotten the lesson of '33-'45 again.
> > According to their bookeeping we owe $$$, but look at all the huminatarian
> > help we give, that the un WONT allow to be counted to our un debt !!!!!
>
> In relation to the GDP, the USA doesn't give particularly much
> humanitarian aid.
Firstly, who are you to judge? WE give more than anyone else, by a larger marging.
Last time I checked, it wasnt about percentage of GNP, it was about bottom line
dollars.
Your anti_American sentiments are showing...
> > All the SAR work, and refugee help we do, but to the un, that dosnt count....
>
> You know, America is not the only country that does such things.
We just do the most...
> E.g. my
> country takes more refugees each year than any other western country,
> even though it's much smaller than the US.
Maybe you should take in fewer. How many of those 'refugees' are Islamicist?
> We also sent firefighters and
> rescue personel to New York after Sept. 11, and have the largest troop
> contingent in the peace-keeping forces in Bosnia and Afghanistan. And we
> still pay our dues.
Good, and you should. Maybe some of your Euro bretherne could take a page from your
book. Like Germany. (Remarkable, France is closer to us on this issue. Could it be
that Muslims outnumber Catholics, in France, now? Hmmm, I wonder. Something for
other countries to learn, regarding refugees...)
> Go on pounding your chest if it makes you feel better.
Fixing the worlds broken shit is a necessity. Stick to your juveniule paradigms,
while your countrymen, and mine (to include quite a number of former collegues) do
the dirty work.
But dont be hurt if, every once in a while, the term Chamberlain-esque, is tossed
your way. Thats all Islamicists want, correct, "Peace in our time..."?
<smirk>
DrOk
Allan Mayer
>In relation to the GDP, the USA doesn't give particularly much
>humanitarian aid.
Ah... you hit the nail on the head here. You believe in Robin Hood.
Because we do have the wealth, you expect, and would like
to demand that we share it...... Your views are crystal clear now....
Sorry, in the world of survival of the fittest, and in just plain
reality, some aid, and sharing is warrented, but not what you, and
the un want to to take from us.....
As for the weapons inspector's ?? Sure they found a pile of stuff, and
sure they also said there was more, that was being hidden, in
palaces, and other places, we needed to give prior notice of where
we were going to search, and yes, they carted items out the back
before they would let us in. They stoped all inspections that they
were not given prior notice of intent to search on.
So obiviously he was still hiding items then. And what did the un do ??
NOTHING !!!!!
Ya dont like the US not paying what YOU (europeans) think is
fair, YOU host the un in YOUR COUNTRY !!!!!!!
Rainer Haas
> Ah... you hit the nail on the head here. You believe in Robin Hood.
> Because we do have the wealth, you expect, and would like
> to demand that we share it...... Your views are crystal clear now....
The UN assessment terms, which the US agreed to, say that an individual
country's payments are determined according to its share of world income.
BTW, this year's largest payer is Japan at $207 million. Meanwhile, the
richest country in the world, which is preparing to wage a $100 billion
war to oust some third-world dictator, refuses to pay its $165 million
debt from 2001. That's about one tenth of the cost of a single B2
bomber. And another nice one: The 1991 gulf war cost about $60 billion.
Almost all of this was paid for by the USA's UN allies (some people say
the US made a profit). You really are some poor country ...
> Sorry, in the world of survival of the fittest, and in just plain
> reality, some aid, and sharing is warrented, but not what you, and
> the un want to to take from us.....
Hello, McFly? The US agreed to those terms. The UN is just asking the US
to fullfil their contractual obligations.
> Ya dont like the US not paying what YOU (europeans) think is
> fair, YOU host the un in YOUR COUNTRY !!!!!!!
Hosting the UN doesn't cost you a dime beyond the regular payments.
Rainer Haas
> Actually what you are seeing is a revolution in the way of our
> thinking...not something completely new but a return to old values
> that mean alot to us.
Actually what I'm seeing is a gun-crazed administration that is
desparately trying to push the world into a war with questionable
motivations, meanwhile ruining the economy, diluting many of the civil
rights that made America such a great country, and re-introducing the
laws of the jungle into international politics. This is not a
revolution, it's a fallback into the 19th century.
Vern Pellerin
> (Remarkable, France is closer to us on this issue. Could it
>be that Muslims outnumber Catholics, in France, now? Hmmm, I wonder. Something for
>other countries to learn, regarding refugees...)
And while I was watching CNN yesterday, they were showing "protests" in
Britian. Funny how the overwhelming majority of the "British" protesters
looked extremely middle eastern to me.
JohnnyChemo
> What Bush is proposing is analog to shooting a guy because he *could*
> have a gun under his coat, without even trying to search him first.
> Texas cowboy style, I guess.
>
Actually, a better analogy would include the fact that guy in question
has been known to carry a concealed weapon and has used it on more than
one occaision. I believe the police term such persons as 'assumed armed
and dangerous.' The procedure in that case is to inspect (hmmm) him, and
if he refuses, use the necessary force.
Oliver Lü
"Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote:
Of course numbnuts. Do you really think Israel was going to attack Iraq
if the U.S. said it was ok to do so? Ever heard of reality?
> >> >snip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hitler didn't "murder" 50 million people, the Holocaust figures are
> >> > generally considered to be around 11 million. (unless you count all
> >> > the dead of WWII as murder victims of him, which isn't really a
> >> > valid method I think). As for communications between Hussein and
> >> > the U.S. before the invasion of Kuwait that's something I'll look
> >> > more into.
> >>
> >> Not a valid method??? Ask the wounded, or the surviving family if
> >> they think its valid. If he's not to blame for the dead in Europe,
> >> who is???
> >
> >
> > What makes you think there's always one individual who's responsible
> > for everything? Sure if you had to pick one person Hitler's probably
> > the guy, but history is much more complex than that.
>
> OK, lets flip that around, Mr. History-is-Complex. Who is responsible
> for those deaths. Why were all those troops in Europe?? Why all those
> cities bombed?? Somehow, I suspect you wont have an answer.
As I stated elsewhere, the roots of World War I are inextricably bound
to World War I and specifically the peace treaties that ended, as well
as economic deprivation in the post-war period. Although that's probably
too complex for you, Mr. I'm-an-idiot-and-proud-of-it.
> >> >> In fact, now that you brought it up, I do see many similarities
> >> >> with Sadaam and Hitler. Both dictators claimed power similarly,
> >> >> killing their oppostion, then claiming leadership through legal
> >> >> (barely) means. Both Sadaam now and Hitler in 1933 have countries
> >> >> with similar military strengths.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Iraq has military strengths similar to Nazi Germany? What are you
> >> > talking about? They couldn't even defeat Iran, and they probably
> >> > aren't as powerful as the Saudis, Turks, and maybe even Israelis.
> >> > The Germans single-handedly took on most of the industrialized
> >> > world and almost won. That comparison is *way* overblown.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Saddaam would have a very good chance against the Saudis if we
> >> weren't there. And once again, how are we rewarded??
> >
> >
> > That still doesn't mean it was anything to Nazi Germany had.
> > Conquering Saudi Arabia is a far cry from conquering continental
> > Europe. And what makes you think Saddam has *any* designs on Saudi
> > Arabia anyway? (that seems to be one of those assumptions that gets
> > thrown around without anyone ever examining it) Just because he threw
> > some Scuds at it while U.N. forces were stationed there, getting ready
> > to attack his army?
> >
>
> Dont know, dont really care about any designs. You're the one who
> seemed to think Iraq wasn't as powerful (militarily) as the Saudis. I
> think thats just another demonstration of your ignorance.
And you're saying that Iraq has both the ability and intentions to start
a war against Saudi Arabia? Based on something other than your "anything
is possible, we can't take any chances" kind of argument?
No, as I pointed out previously a great number of the Taliban soldiers
were not Afghanis to begin with, they were defending their *adopted*
homeland only in a religious sense.
> >> Wake up and smell the coffee, it's been brewing for awhile.
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >
> >
> > Maybe you should switch to decaf.
>
> Maybe you should lighten up on the weed, or alcohol, or whatever.
> Remember, the way things are...not the way you want them to be.
Likewise, the way things are is not defined by what makes you feel
better by releasing your aggressions....
Oliver Lü
"Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote:
(snipped)
> Re read the thread. Oliver seems to think that since
> Saddaam and Al
> Qaeda aren't politically identical, they won't band up
> against us. I
> disagree.
Actually the discussion (at least from my end) was never about whether
Saddam and Al Qaeda might team up in the future, it was about whether
they had already and whether that could be used as a justification for
war. Anything in the future is possible, although as I've stated before
bin Laden has very little patience for secular Muslim leaders, they are
as bad to him in certain ways as Westerners.
> >>>So we're going to go to war for them? What happened to
> letting people
> >>>take care of their own problems?
> >>
> >> If you know anything, you know we've been holding the
> Israelis back
> >> from kicking ass before.
> >
> > LOL. Last time your president tried to hold them back
> (when they first
> > moved tanks into Ramalla earlier this year), Sharon
> publicly thumbed
> > his nose at him. The US is Israel's puppet.
>
> Do you not think the Israelis wouldn't have rolled over the
> PLO etc. if
> we weren't holding them back. None of this halfway crap, I
> mean REALLY
> rolling over them. Not to mention Desert Storm 1.
And losing completely any pretense of moral righteousness in the
process, as well as isolating themselves politically? Not even the
Israelis are that cheeky.
(snipped)
>
> Chuck
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
> Pure alturism is an abomination. Its a sickness spread by people who
> havent earned what they are giving away...its a sickness most often
> seen in young rich shits.
I never said (if this what you are implying) that our motives, or
anyone's for that matter, should be based on what you call "pure
altruism". Nor do I believe it, for that matter. I would just appreciate
it for once if Americans would stop acting *as if* that's the reason
they do things.
> >And the plans for this for Iraq entail what exactly? (Keeping in mind
> >both Japan and Germany were rebuilt as bulwarks against communism and to
> >become important trading partners for the American economy. Not exactly
> >pure altruism.)
>
> No doubt as a business man I want my customers healthy and
> happy...makes them want to spend the money they create. You probably
> dont understand that money is created do you. The plans for the
> rehabilitation of Iraq are in action....or do you believe that you
> deserve to hear the plan before its put into play.
Don't you think you do?
Oliver Lu
Dr Oddness Killtroll <an...@annex.annex> wrote:
> Rainer Haas wrote:
>
> > Allan Mayer wrote:
(snipped)
> > Sure, everybody who doesn't share your opinion is anti-American.
>
> No. But you are now.
Oh, ok, now he is. As if you just came that decision.
> > People
> > of my country have died helping the US in the war against terror in
> > Afghanistan, BTW.
>
> Salute to them, and your country. No thanks to you, though.
>
> > In fact, the US refused to pay most of their dues so far.
>
> Hehehehehehe...
>
> The ususal UN nonsense. We STILL pay more than anyone else. UN, NATO, our own
> defense.
I think he's talking strictly about UN dues. Building up your own
military to be the dominant one in the world hardly qualifies as
contributing to international peacekeeping.
You guys like 7 weeks garaunteed vacay a year, and other such
> socialist
> niceties. You've forgotten the lesson of '33-'45 again.
Exactly how does paid vacation time imply "forgetting the lesson of
'33-45'"?
> > > According to their bookeeping we owe $$$, but look at all the
> > > huminatarian
> > > help we give, that the un WONT allow to be counted to our un debt !!!!!
> >
> > In relation to the GDP, the USA doesn't give particularly much
> > humanitarian aid.
>
> Firstly, who are you to judge? WE give more than anyone else, by a larger
> marging.
> Last time I checked, it wasnt about percentage of GNP, it was about bottom
> line
> dollars.
It *is* about percentage if you want to act self-righteous about it.
> Your anti_American sentiments are showing...
>
> > > All the SAR work, and refugee help we do, but to the un, that dosnt
> > > count....
> >
> > You know, America is not the only country that does such things.
>
> We just do the most...
>
> > E.g. my
> > country takes more refugees each year than any other western country,
> > even though it's much smaller than the US.
>
> Maybe you should take in fewer. How many of those 'refugees' are Islamicist?
Oh right, and if they refused to admit them it would be the old
criticism "oh there those Germans go again, they're still a bunch of
racist Nazi bastards, didn't they learn anything when we kicked their
ass last time?" No matter what happens Americans criticize.
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
> Tell me what would you do if you had intelligence leading you to
> believe that the US was gonna be attacked by either a Small Pox or
> other bio terror attack. Would you be complacent...or would you be a
> little freaked out...?
Again, if that's the case then obviously you would be justified in
acting. The argument is not about whether it's ok to defend yourself,
it's about whether that threat really exists.
Oliver Lü
vpel...@flarenchaffsan.rr.com (Vern Pellerin) wrote:
> In article <oliverlu-DF1394...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>,
> Oliver Lü <oliv...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >In article <3d96168...@news.west.cox.net>,
> > pleg...@earthlink.net (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
> >
> >> No Im not confusing them Im binding them together where they belong.
> >> All towel headed freaks in the corner to die. More and more evidence
> >> exists that Iraq gave support and training to the Al Queda....more and
> >> more evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma bombing
> >> and the WTC 93 bombing....ooops. I guess Saddam never really stopped
> >> fighting and we did thinking that dropping a few bombs on top of him
> >> every now and again was gonna stop him. Oops my bad.
> >
> >
> >Why not include Saudi Arabia among your "towel headed freaks" in the
> >corner then? I mean they're the very heart of Islam, much more than
> >Iraq. Why not just kill them all? You can scoot out from behind your
>
> Sure! After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Yep,
> they're definately pumping out the hardcore Islam freaks. And it's about
> time
> we stopped pretending that Saudi Arabia is our "friend". The country is
> obviously our enemy, except for all that damn oil we buy from them.
Well it's nice to hear someone actually say that for a change...
If we
> didn't need the oil, they wouldn't be our supposed "friend" anymore.
Again, more truth in advertising. Bravo!
And the
> more oil that Russia cranks out, the less we'll need them.
I wouldn't get too comfortable with Russia. They're a major power with
interests that clash with those of the U.S. in many ways. They have a
long history of nationalistic expansionism, and do not have any plans on
remaining in a one-down position for long.
Although we need
> to become less dependent on oil all-together. A concept that Bush doesn't
> seem to push. What was that? Did I just publically criticise my own
> president? Yea, I can do that, without worrying about the U.S. military
> busting down my door and hauling me off to prison for 10 years. :-) Good
> thing I don't live in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or some other middle eastern
> country. Otherwise I'd be in jail receiving beatings before I finished
> typing
> the next newsgroup message.
(snipped)
> Obviously you clearly know NOTHING about the U.S. media ! ! ! You must have
> NEVER, EVER seen so much as one single broadcast from U.S. T.V. It's so
> politically correct it makes me wanna puke! The media never bashes the
> middle
> east. Honestly, it would be really refreshing if the mainstream U.S. media
> started to show what those middle eastern countries are really like. The
> lack
> of human rights are attrocious, and the extreme religous hate monger zealots
> are being cranked out by the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.
Are you absolutely joking? That's the *only* thing you ever see on
network television in the U.S.! Saddam firing off his shotgun in the
air, bin Laden aiming an AK-47, Palestinians dancing in the streets
burning Israeli flags, and so on. If U.S. media wanted to show something
*real* about the Middle East they could start with the effects of the
American embargo on Iraq, for example.
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
> Schroder cost Germany and ally. He could have done that to Clinton and
> gotten away with it...Bush is an entirely different matter and Im
> afraid Shroder doesnt know a real Texan too well.
>
> PAPA DOC
International politics isn't a competition between tough guys. The U.S.
has been criticizing Germans for fifty years for simply doing what they
think they're supposed to rather than questioning things, but now that
they're doing it with respect to *American* expectations, they're
nothing more than a big pain in the ass.
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
> hehe..
>
> >Why not include Saudi Arabia among your "towel headed freaks" in the
> >corner then? I mean they're the very heart of Islam, much more than
> >Iraq. Why not just kill them all? You can scoot out from behind your
> >"virtual cockpit", after all, and lead the attacks because you're such a
> >big man, right?
>
> We are getting to them all...dont worry. The problem is some of you
> thought that Bush was Clinton and that when he said things like
>
> "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government
> that supports them." and this
>
> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
> It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
> found, stopped and defeated.' and this
>
> "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to
> terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make:
> Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
>
> Bush is NOT like Clinton...
Yeah, just look at the economy after all...
> Saudi Arabia is definitely on notice that they are not favored. Notice
> how we started moving our air base away from them.....
Yeah, after they expressed reluctance about our using their air base to
invade Iraq.
we know they
> fund terrorists. They will stop or die.
>
> >I see you've bought completely into the racist stereotypes perpretrated
> >throughout the U.S. media...and you think that makes you a "patriot".
>
> No I came to this conclusion all by my lonesome after reading and
> watching these towel headed murdering scum. They are NOT honorable,
> they celebrate killing a mother and children as if this is some great
> accomplishment. Islam is not that enemy the Jihadist are....
If that is the case do you really think you're not hurting your own
argument by using the phrase "towel headed freak"?
Oliver Lü
PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
I agree that those statements are inflammatory (as well as childish) but
that doesn't mean you have to respond to them. Anyone who knows the
cultures of the Middle East (at the risk of a huge generalization) know
they love to engage in partisan hyperbole...it doesn't mean anyone,
including the people who say it, believe it themselves (in China there
is a saying for example, no rumor is considered true until the
government officially denies it.)
> >I think my level of education regarding these issues is fine, thank you.
> >Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot by definition.
>
> No your level of education is severely lacking because you didnt even
> realize that people were connecting Saddam to Bin Laden and thats
> crucial...whether you agree that the evidence is there or not by not
> knowing it exists means you arent educated about this issue.
If you don't believe the evidence is there then the "connections", in
any meaningful sense, *aren't* there.
> >That's absolutely fine for you to believe. I just don't share your point
> >of view.
>
> Hamas is very clear about wanting to exterminate Israel...is that what
> you dont believe? Or do you not believe that even the PLO's stated
> goal is the elimination of Israel...? Ask yourself this...if the PLO
> was just interested in gaining back the land lost in the 73 war why
> were they formed before the land was lost...???
Now you're talking about Palestine-Israel, this is a different set of
issues. How will attacking Iraq protect Israel, in any substantive way,
and is the job of the U.S. to protect Israel? As for the PLO, they are
allowed to change their purpose(s) (whether you believe it's genuine or
not is another issue). I could equally ask you, if Israel intends to
withdraw from the occupied territories, why do they continue building
settlements on them?
> >Without WWI WWW2 wouldn't have happened. And who was responsible for
> >WWI? (hint: it was an international system of alliances between
> >imperialistic European countries)
>
> Bullshit answer...post modernist bullshit doesnt work on me Im too old
> and have too much experience with reality to believe that crap. That
> the terms of the WW1 Treaty were terrible is beyond dispute. That
> Germany's only course was war is bullshit.
Actually Winston Churchill himself stated that position in his
memoirs...hardly "post modernist bullshit".
> >That's because for many of them the Taliban was a foreign government;
> >Saddam, no matter how bad he is, is at least an Iraqi himself.
>
> When we liberate Iraq and Iran watch the people. The love of self
> determination is the same for all people..
>
> PAPA DOC
Iran? Now you want to invade Iran?