FLM films - My Webpage

2003-04-19 06:18:56-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace?

2003-04-19 11:16:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The war is not over. There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in Iraq. There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN Charter. Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance at peace in the world.

2003-04-19 11:33:57-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us what we can and cannot do. Any organization that allows the country of Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is threaten to pass more resolutions. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are conesquences to actions. Iraq was given two weeks to completely disarm themselves of WMD in 1991. During the past twelve years, Husein stole funds from the "oil for food" program, built over a dozen palaces for himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. > You're an idiot.

2003-04-19 12:57:58-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: >i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that >involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new >government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most >anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no >one in their right mind supports him. >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Other options like what? Give the UN another twelve years to pass meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution? Give sanctions another twelve years to work? All the time, Iraqis are systematically being tortured, beaten, jailed, raped and starved. When it was obvious that the US was going to removed Saddam from power, the Sauds attempted to get Saddam to go into exile, an option that we tacilty endorsed. But Hussein would be giving up not only his country, but the source of the biilions of dollars he has amassed over the past twelve years. Really, tell me what other options did we have. We gave peace a chance for twelve years, that didn't work, we tried the exhile route, Saddam wanted not part of it. And we did not bomb the shit out of Iraq. If you want to see what a country looks like when it has the shit bombed out of it, look at Germany, the city of Dresden in particular after WWII. Something like 80,000 civilains were killed in that city alone. Had we wanted merely to level Iraq, we could have. The killing of Hussein was never a stated purpose of the war, just his removal from power. Killing him would have been (and might have been) a bonus.

2003-04-19 17:01:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > The war is not over. > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > Iraq. There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > Charter. We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the world? > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > at peace in the world. That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice and find some deserted island now because we are coming!

2003-04-19 17:33:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. Excellent observation. > >> >>Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >>decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. WW III started on 9/11, but for some reason, not everybody has figured it out yet. Mike

2003-04-19 17:42:17+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>)


-- On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:18:56 -0700, Tim Bruening > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The plan is to bring together all acceptable political tendencies (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based government, which will then hold elections. In the vacuum, lots of unpleasant people are grabbing for despotic power. However the coalition forces hold the oil, and therefore only a government that they approve can pay salaries. Expect a long fairly bloody contest between the approved government, which can pay people to work for it, and various unapproved would be governments, which can kill people who refuse to work for them. The plan is that during this long bloody contest, the coalition approved government will gain in popularity and military power, until it can crush its enemies with minimal coalition assistance. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YNSmAROTnwkxEj7W/Vm6CJBmUiVHduKEnNj4sE9p 4bW9H4vrnEg9lr9QEqZZna0WSw+lrPC0aPR2KHuXR

2003-04-19 17:53:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > You should have inserted an evil cackle!

2003-04-19 18:09:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Yes. In the long term, considering the world situation, more people will die or be harmed by this war, at this time, in this way than would have been harmed by Saddam. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Why, exactly, should we respect the US as a sovereign nation when it shows no respect for the sovereignty of other countries? LOL > ny organization that allows the country of > Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an > impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is > threaten to pass more resolutions. You do realise that you have just commented on several different UN bodies, not all of whom pass resolutions, yet you seem ignorant of the distinction between those bodies. > himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and > Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so > much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and > starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. Wrong. The oil-for-food program, which fed about 60% of the Iraqi people, has yet to resume in any meaningful way. Further, under Bush's proposed government, the oil will be privately owned, including foreign (US) ownership, and thus its profits will not benefit the poor in Iraq at all. Based on the lack of information in your response I assume you do not follow world events and rely only on CNN for you news, as such I see no need to educate you by replying further.

2003-04-19 18:11:10-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to do so.

2003-04-19 18:13:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how one-sided public opinion can be! > > Now, the money from the oil for > > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. And other Iraq contracts: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with ties to the Bush administration. "

2003-04-19 19:20:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are > conesquences to actions. No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:23:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where 'democracies' were installed by the US. The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and destabilising democratic regimes. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:28:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


James A. Donald wrote: > -- > (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial > list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based > government, which will then hold elections. And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would trust to install a democratic government. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 20:13:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british soldiers had come back in body bags. You'll also probably be one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from Neville Chamberlain perhaps? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 20:14:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN > mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with > you. > >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security > council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing > the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Actually, I doubt whether Team Bush's reasoning, internally, has changed even once. IMHO, they simply made the mistake of trying to rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled on a regular basis. > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Cool. Job Creation. Mike

2003-04-19 22:01:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >James A. Donald wrote: >> -- >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. > >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. As far as I can see the ONLY evidence the USA has for Iraq having biological and chemical weapons is that the US sold biological agents to Iraq together with the technology to brew them up and put them into weapons. Same thing with chemical weapons. The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. Bu those sales were 20 years ago and more, and that sort of equipment doesn't last long given the stress of heat and so on that it has to take, and the 100% level of containment that is essential. When a seal leaks you don't just put some gasket sealer on and bolt the parts together.

2003-04-19 22:21:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! -- JoAnn Peeler

2003-04-19 22:50:36-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wroth: >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Name them Like inspections???

2003-04-19 22:50:37-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. He never changed it. It was always the same >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Prove it.

2003-04-19 22:53:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > >Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > >If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan >genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only white people oppress blacks. >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > >No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government that does things the way the US wants. An end to US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't a likely event: the US occupied Germany for years "to build democracy and freedom", then stayed on during the cold war "to defend Europe". Now the cold war is over but the US is still there after more than 10 years "because we can", and in the US idiots are screaming about how evil Germany won't support Bush's invasion. Apparently even after more than 55 years freedom and democracy still only means "Freedom to do it our way".

2003-04-19 22:55:30-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:53:14 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wroth: > >Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing >to support Bush's full tax cut. What?! I did not know fascists were big on cutting taxes

2003-04-19 22:59:56-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:54:25 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >The Black Sheep wrote: >> "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message >> news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but >> France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how >> one-sided public opinion can be! > >30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every >resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out >of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam >out of Kuwait. But Israel is not in Palestinian land

2003-04-19 22:59:57-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:00:13 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > >It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically >elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out >of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to >the war are now null and void". What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody

2003-04-19 22:59:58-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it personal and start with the cussing

2003-04-19 23:52:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >> on a regular basis. > > Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living > with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were > more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid > terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Just terrorist ass-kicking. If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing them instead. And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). Mike

2003-04-19 23:54:25+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! 30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam out of Kuwait. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 23:56:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who > really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled > on a regular basis. Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:00:13+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to > guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be > secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't > be worth the bother. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to the war are now null and void". > The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or > Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. I've been saying that for months now. It was another convenient bit of waffle to convince the sheep. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:02:33+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam > sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of Saddam. Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:10:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:b7s2fg$ldp$1@titan.btinternet.com... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > > You should have inserted an evil cackle! > I didn't know how to type out the "Dr. Evil laugh"....

2003-04-20 00:15:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7shlv$3eh1p$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government > in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others > countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey > the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the > world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over > the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that > the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a > chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters > are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > do so. > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would be much different than it is.

2003-04-20 00:16:58+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <Xns93627FD56A281mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44>, Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes: >WW III started on 9/11, but for some reason, not everybody has figured it >out yet. > Minor correction: WW IV. WW III was the Cold War. It was fought on about every continent one way or another. (Anyone wanna bet against this being a long running thread of flames? Thought not.) Stephen Weick So if Joss Whedon is an Angry Atheist, were all those "Joss is God" posts a personal insult?

2003-04-20 00:19:47+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in news:20030419201658.18772.00000055@mb-m16.aol.com: > In article <Xns93627FD56A281mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44>, Mike > Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes: > >>WW III started on 9/11, but for some reason, not everybody has figured >>it out yet. >> > > Minor correction: WW IV. WW III was the Cold War. It was fought on > about every continent one way or another. Hard to argue that. > > (Anyone wanna bet against this being a long running thread of flames? > Thought not.) There's no place on USENET without one........ Mike

2003-04-20 00:30:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >James A. Donald wrote: >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the face when he met with him? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-20 01:43:08+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. > We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. Try getting some education about events from around the world before you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 02:35:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050799198.34690.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. > > We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. Just taking you at your word. I guess you should have phrased it better, eh? > We dealt with them > in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When > we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their > human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent > civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were > told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these > terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a > blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, > money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking > great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't > keep your noses out of other peoples business. Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. Sorry about that. > >> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). > > What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for > you lot isn't it? Yep, it's a whole new deal out there, right now. That's the great thing about term limited presidents -- every 8 (sometimes 4) you throw the lot of them out, and the new guys blame every policy they don't want to continue on the old guys. >Usually you give these killers everything they need. > You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Times change. > Terrorism - all you > know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror > on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me > laugh. We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Try getting some education about events from around the world before > you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with > terrorists. Ah, yes, the "Yanks don't know squat" myth. Makes you feel good, doesn't it? Makes you feel like a real MAN, to have something nasty to say like that. Jerkoff. Go back to your blow up doll. Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have watching my back than the Royal Marines. Mike

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 03:58:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (matthew <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: Hear hear!! > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. >

2003-04-20 06:42:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"matthew" <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1c776eab1a27978b599c9e85cd7b92ad@news.value-news.net... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hear hear!! > > NO! First of all, it's here, here! Second of all, WE ARE THE U.S. OF A! and we are taking over a world near you!!!!! > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >Charter. > > > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > >at peace in the world. > > > >

2003-04-20 08:58:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. > Sorry about that. If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should expect to get stung. > We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell > did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to > control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are > going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of > Baghdad, and they're still not done. Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. > Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers bombed. > > Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have > watching my back than the Royal Marines. Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:07:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by > refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to > what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi > invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican > who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote > 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right > there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US > policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get > elected by right wing republicans. There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are beginning to sound familiar. > And now we hear > that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was > protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian > aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US > saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the > money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave > enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his pals. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1 Answer: Nazi Germany

2003-04-20 09:20:21-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:35:51 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >> start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. > >The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that >the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Could you elaborate about this a little? pretty please?? Regards, Stiimpson

2003-04-20 09:24:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Prove it. Enjoy. http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to Halliburton. " Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the International Resources Group on February 21st. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning favours for generous political campaign contributions" http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html I think there's enough for you to be going on with. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:26:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there was". -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:29:45+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > face when he met with him? It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:34:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


EGK wrote: > I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have > been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own > british soldiers had come back in body bags. What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars who sent them there in the first place. > You'll also probably be > one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to > buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. > You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably > much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from > Neville Chamberlain perhaps? Read my other posts *we* were doing something about it until some twattish US politicians stuck their nose into our business. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:39:16+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it > personal and start with the cussing No argument to lose pal. Merely dealing with yet another uneducated fool who thinks that anyone who disagrees with the buffoon in the Whitehouse is/was a fervent supporter of Saddam. The "Saddam supporter" jibe is a tactic used by those who don't have the capability to debate an issue, and has been used by those seeking to silence legitimate dissension for years. Thankfully some of us in the world aren't as stupid and sheeplike as JoAnn, and are capable of looking at the subject and making up our own minds instead of being given an opinion by FOX 'News' (the network for the hard of thinking). BTW enjoy the contract post. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 10:19:55-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Nick Pietrzak <nickp2@bellsouth.net>)


Woot Guig! Guig > Misner We await your response David. -nick "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.1@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Glenn Misner wrote: > > Prove it. > > Enjoy. > > http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 > > "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee > firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while > the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, > including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the > Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." > > http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml > > "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to > two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney > after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their > apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to > Halliburton. " > > Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. > > http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm > > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html > > "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the > International Resources Group on February 21st. " > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html > > "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British > industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting > alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the > Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning > favours for generous political campaign contributions" > > http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html > http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html > > I think there's enough for you to be going on with. > > -- > Guig > GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. > CBFA #1 > >

2003-04-20 10:40:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > >> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >> 'democracies' were installed by the US. > >There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >the current US president. And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. > >> The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most >> heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and >> destabilising democratic regimes. > >More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed >tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 11:03:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children > were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were > beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was As opposed to people being bombed, shot, having no running water, food or electricity. Gangs of looters and vandals on the streets with no attempt being made to maintain any order. > diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. > This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted > him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. Nor do they want people selected by the US in power. Many of whom appear just as bad as Saddam Hussein (who was originally a US endorsed leader anyway) it may even work out as a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last There is no such time. > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. The problem is that the US government is now looking for its next target... >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >>Charter. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us Then maybe the US should stop its whining about Iraq having ignored UN resolutions. Or the French bashing over a threat to veto a resolution which never happened anyway. Maybe even the US should stop vetoing resolutions to protect thugs the US happens to like.

2003-04-20 11:07:41+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >> >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> > >> >The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >> > >> >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >> >Iraq. >> >> Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet >> government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new Probably considerably more, since the bombing has been going on since 1991. > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Assuming he is actually dead.

2003-04-20 11:16:18+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >>> >>>The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>> >>>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>>Iraq. > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a deemocracy. (Even if this were possible the first action of such an "installed democracy" would be tell the occupiers to leave.) On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic governments in the last century or so. > democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was > supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps > US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or want foreign troops in his capital.

2003-04-20 11:21:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where > 'democracies' were installed by the US. There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding the current US president. > The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most > heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and > destabilising democratic regimes. More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 11:27:38+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, > or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. That's insulting, to children, especially girls. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. Not quite the US vetos anything which would be against a government the US government happens to like. However brutal and thugish that government might be, even governments which murder US citizens... >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the > reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even from day to day. >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The US forces who are apparently unable to stop looting in Iraq's cities were able to boot out some Kuwaiti firefighters who were putting out burning oil wells. Wouldn't want the Arabs getting money which should be going to the US...

2003-04-20 11:33:30+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in > news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >>> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >>> on a regular basis. >> >> Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living >> with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were >> more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid >> terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. > We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Really, someone needs to tell the US Congress. > Just terrorist ass-kicking. I must have missed the US government being purged of the people who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. > If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume > you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing > them instead. So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos and put on trial?

2003-04-20 11:35:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Try getting some education about events from around the world before you > start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington.

2003-04-20 11:40:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been They are not at all happy about having the Americans staying though. > done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Maybe the Chechens are happy with the government they have.

2003-04-20 11:42:56+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> > Now, the money from the oil for >> > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >> No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts >> for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > And other Iraq contracts: > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 > "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative > rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with > ties to the Bush administration. " Wonder if Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, Kuwaiti even Iraqi companies are going to even get a look in.

2003-04-20 12:15:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing > to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they > call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is > trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them > replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. (Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you wonder how weak their position actually is. > That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone > anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows > what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >>> What did the UN do >>> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. >> >>If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >>council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >>permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >>genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >>it generally vetoes everything that moves. > The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and > oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black Also so long as whatever civil unrest dosn't get in the way of US companies getting whatever they want. Anyway it's probably easier to make off with the mineral wealth of a country in a state of civil war than one with a stable government. > politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only > white people oppress blacks. Admitting to this would mean that they would need to find political arguments which are not based on racism. Some African leaders, notably Robert Mugabe, manage to play on these Western stereotypes and assumptions. >>> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >>> conesquences to actions. >> >>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >>reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the > "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled > looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions > of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Or even discover if they even existed in the first place... > Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US > troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport > infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other > associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in > Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry > of petroleum office. > My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare > walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and > water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Whilst your average Baghdad resident probably cares rather more about having no drinking water or electricity and not being able to walk the streets in safety than the state of Iraq's oil industry. > Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... > To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those > white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad > and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? Or "The Iraqi People, Plc"... >> >>> Now, the money from the oil for >>> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >>No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >>for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled > by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. Unless the US goes on to occupy Syria too. In which case Iraqi oil will also be exported through Haifa. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, > reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they > did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we I though the idea was the money was going to come from oil and frozen Iraqi assets. > got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to > keep the free government voting our way". > Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do > it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government > that does things the way the US wants. They probably wern't trying to be ironic either.

2003-04-20 12:22:06+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. >> Sorry about that. > > If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and > ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should > expect to get stung. Agreed. > >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what > has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Yea, but military experts around the globe are still amazed by the feat. It's certainly been talked about by the Brits at their daily briefings. I believe the Brit commander described it as "revolutionary in its skill, speed, and sheer audacity." >> Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. > > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way > they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance > to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, > London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places > the fekkers bombed. Agreed. >> Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have >> watching my back than the Royal Marines. > > Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army > (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. No question. Mike

2003-04-20 12:25:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or > want foreign troops in his capital. Doesn't work that way. What happened in Paris, for example, after kicking the Nazis out was bloody and lawless, actually worse than anything that's happened in post-fall Baghdad or Kabul. Is that because the people didn't support the restoration of the French government? Hardly. Mike

2003-04-20 12:26:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >>James A. Donald wrote: >>> -- >>> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >>> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >>> government, which will then hold elections. >> >>And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >>hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the > gassing >>of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I > would >>trust to install a democratic government. > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard > the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western It may not be secular, putting religious people into power would divide up the Iraqi population. Effectivly getting rid of secular Arab nationalism, which is disliked both in Washington and Tel Aviv. > and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. i.e. don't bother standing if you want the US to leave...

2003-04-20 12:29:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then >> the > > Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic > government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a > deemocracy. Obviously. I expected the readers (that's you) to make the obvious derivation that all we can do is support the creation of a democratic framework, defend the framework while it builds a a governmental infrastructure, and hope that the people can take it from there. > On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic > governments in the last century or so. Without objection. Finally we've got a government that's turning over a new leaf. You should be happy that we're addressing this shortcoming. Mike

2003-04-20 12:30:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:last7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding > the current US president. Rule of Law. Got a problem with it? Besides, what does that have to do with Iraq? (ANSWER: not one damn thing) > Mike

2003-04-20 12:32:06+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically > elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out > of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to > the war are now null and void". The US would have deployed "independent" election monitors (from Florida) to prevent that happening. If such a government did arise then a "popular uprising" would occur resulting in a coup within 27 days. Also the Iraqi government would probably have extreme difficult communicating with anywhere else on the planet, especially Caracas.

2003-04-20 12:35:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > I must have missed the US government being purged of the people > who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. You need a purge? Stripping them of their power isn't enough? (Geez, some people are never satisfied.) > > Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. Not odd. Think through the process. You do think, don't you? > >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now >> removing them instead. > > So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos > and put on trial? You don't, because he's not a totalitarian dictator. He serves at the will of his people. They have things there called E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S. Mike

2003-04-20 12:36:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:76tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before >> you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with >> terrorists. > > The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that > the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Ah, you're a terror-boy! You're a "the US deserved it" guy. And here, I thought you might actually have a brain! Mike

2003-04-20 12:37:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > EGK wrote: >> I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have >> been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own >> british soldiers had come back in body bags. > What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home > safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my With the safest place for them being back home. Especially considering the biggest danger appears to "friendly fire". > support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and > their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars > who sent them there in the first place. >> You'll also probably be >> one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to >> buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. > Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them > solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up What would be a laughing matter, were it not so grave, is when some of these very same people claim to be fighting a "war on terrorism". > Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. So far as we know the IRA was never trained and funded by the British government...

2003-04-20 14:00:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:15:15 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. >Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. >(Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) > >If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you >wonder how weak their position actually is. > > Ah, Mr. Evans. You want to talk about weak positions? Why don't you tell us again about how those pesky Israelis flew jets into the WTC on 9/11. Maybe you could entertain us with more tales of how NYC police look away when people caught with terrorist materials "flash israeli passports" at JFK airport. Now, I suppose, there is a massive conspiracy afoot to instantly replace any congressman who speaks against Israel. Of course this makes one wonder how there are so many who do exactly that, but than I suppose reason is obviously not your strength. You are so blinded by hatred that you REALLY look foolish. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:14:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian terrorists? Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:30:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net... > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they > deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to > politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London > Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers > bombed. The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. I'm Irish by the way! Caroline Chocolate - The Lip Balm of the Gods!

2003-04-20 14:33:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! You're welcome!

2003-04-20 14:59:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and > convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. > The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among > others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these > atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who > bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses > encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. Very true. All very reminiscent of the current state of play at Guantanamo Bay where anyone in Afghanistan who wasn't a WASP was lifted and dumped in tiny cages you wouldn't keep your cat in. > I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful > romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for > guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. Yes, the US IRA supporters have this lovely notion of the "Old Country" where their distant relatives are some poor downtrodden mass forced to work in slave labour camps by whip-wielding, bowler hatted Brits. The reality is that the people in NI, regardless or sex, or creed, have the same rights of voting, worship, speech, press as everyone else in the UK. > They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to > kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. The SAS "shoot to kill" policy was pretty tightly regulated as they went after the people at the top of the chain rather than the drones. The recent report on the RUC aiding 'loyalist' terrorists however is a different matter and everyone connected with it needs to be brought to justice. > I'm Irish by the way! Long live the Celts!!! -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 15:20:35+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote in message news:3ea17bdd_1@news.iprimus.com.au... > > > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > > > > > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > >The war is not over. > > > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > >Iraq. > > > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have done to make Hussein step down. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-20 15:40:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote: > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >> > Charter. >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the >> world? >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into >thinking >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my >advice >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! >> >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some >60years ago and >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can >make a man out of you. >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll >have to state >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. >Sofia D Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 17:23:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > > face when he met with him? > > It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over > being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably > the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a > handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. > > Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own > folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose > much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=958654 (requires registration) Story by Eoghan Williams Here's some of the highlights! General Peter Sutherland and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped sell nuclear reactors worth $200m to North Korea, the Sunday Independent can reveal. The multimillion-dollar reactor deal was struck just a year before President George W Bush branded the reclusive communist state part of an "axis of evil". American nuclear experts warned last week that radioactive components from the reactors could be used to develop powerful nuclear weapons. Now Pyongyang says this is exactly what it intends to do. Mr Sutherland and Mr Rumsfeld, who work together on several high-level projects, were both board members of a Zurich-based energy company, ABB, which sold two light-water nuclear reactors to the communists in 2000. North Korea is thought to already have two nuclear missiles. That could increase to 10, thanks to material plundered from nuclear reactors Mr Rumsfeld used his position as chairman of the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission to warn: "North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme." Less than two years later he and Sutherland were openly selling the 'rogue state' $200m worth of nuclear kit. Caroline No support for the Profits of Doom

2003-04-20 17:30:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Nick Pietrzak wrote: > Woot Guig! > > Guig > Misner > > We await your response David. > I doubt there will be one, and all that info was found in about 5 mins of googling. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 17:56:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-20 18:40:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney > General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million > worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea He gets around doesn't he. I saw him interviewed by David Dimbley of the Beeb and he was not a happy bunny. Dimbleby pushed him hard to actually get answers from him and he didn't like it, a bit different from his stage managed press conferences with his stooge journos in attendance. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 19:18:53-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mEloa.31252$ey1.2827206@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > > do so. > > > > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other > countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our > intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* > probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later > our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if > our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would > be much different than it is. Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a great crowd pleaser.

2003-04-20 19:21:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have > done to make Hussein step down. Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess you are only listening to US propaganda.

2003-04-20 19:23:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those > notions. You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about it.

2003-04-20 20:29:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote in message news:3ea2f90a$0$11347$ba620e4c@reader0.news.skynet.be... > > EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : > lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" > <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the > UN > > >> > Charter. > > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > >> world? > > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > > >thinking > > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > > >advice > > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > >> > > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you > in > > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > > >60years ago and > > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand > and > > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat > to > > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should > go > > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you > can > > >make a man out of you. > > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless > I'll > > >have to state > > > > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > > >Sofia D > > > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my > mouth in a situation like this. > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those notions.

2003-04-20 21:35:15+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it ,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some 60years ago and look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can make a man out of you. If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll have to state that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. Sofia D

2003-04-20 21:45:32+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > wrote: > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >> > Charter. > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > >> world? > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > >thinking > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > >advice > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > >> > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > >60years ago and > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can > >make a man out of you. > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll > >have to state > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > >Sofia D > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my mouth in a situation like this.

2003-04-20 21:49:08-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote: >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those alternatives are.

2003-04-20 22:34:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050827455.54930.0@iris.uk.clara.net>... >Aethelrede wrote: >> A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >> Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by >> refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a >> "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to >> what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi >> invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican >> who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote >> 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right >> there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US >> policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get >> elected by right wing republicans. > >There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who >disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of >office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric >and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are >beginning to sound familiar. > >> And now we hear >> that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was >> protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. > >Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > >> The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian >> aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US >> saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the >> money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave >> enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". > >I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart >the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't >up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the >conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his >pals. This morning's headline in the local paper: "Military Plans Long-Term Stay: Iraqi bases would be regional foothold.". And inside, every columnist is saying how "This time" the US should make good and sure that the constitution and the government are westernised and totally pro-American, not like the way Kuwait was simply left. There's also a lot of use of words like "Tyrants" and "Despots" in reference to the US Arab allies who provide so much US oil and staging areas for US troops.

2003-04-20 22:39:29-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:07:05 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > >Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly >enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. And sanctions, don't forget sanctions. As long as we have countries like Russia, France, Germany, Syria, Jordan, et al in the mix, sanctions really do the trick. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 23:07:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >wrote: > >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. > >That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >alternatives are. Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 23:37:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those > > notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term.

2003-04-20 23:39:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > great crowd pleaser. Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, right now. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > >> It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power >> and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only >> country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those >> notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. > Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Hell, if the Canadians HAD signed on to the Coalition, we'd have had to give them a ride there, like we did to Afghanistan. Some help. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:8bGoa.8564 $xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. Point well taken. Thanks. Mike

2003-04-20 23:48:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > security >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > and >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > where >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. Do you have some sort of point? -- Laz

2003-04-21 00:00:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > using the companies of his pals. You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Have you apologized to your friends, yet? -- Laz

2003-04-21 01:08:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> crowds, right now. > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Mike

2003-04-21 01:12:58+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > > > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> crowds, right now. > > > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 01:21:10-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody > >Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there >was". Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms to Iraq?

2003-04-21 01:33:32-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >> >> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >> All I >> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >> that >> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >> of >> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >> started >> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >> you have >> > done to make Hussein step down. >> >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >So name them. That's all I'm asking. I am asking too. Will you please Name them???

2003-04-21 01:34:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > bit has changed. Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families too. Mike

2003-04-21 01:39:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > > > > > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > > great crowd pleaser. > > Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > right now. Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Caroline Just say no to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 02:06:10+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in > news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > > > > > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > > bit has changed. > > Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families > too. And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message > news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. > All I > > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying > that > > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years > of > > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein > started > > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would > you have > > done to make Hussein step down. > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 03:38:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:ovn6av0eh86s87qtd5ao1kkuar65un30pb@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey > <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just >>>that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an >>>alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an >>>alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have >>>heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the >>>solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe >>>all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war >>>protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not >>>hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > > Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was > hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. I think the European strategy was to simply outlive Hussein. But, then, those kids of his. Bad strategy. Mike

2003-04-21 06:44:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Laz wrote in message ... >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> using the companies of his pals. > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to replace any of what was lost. Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of military equipment. Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil production and export infrastructure.

2003-04-21 06:54:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> crowds, right now. >> > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot that building. All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives of the Iraqi people. At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power.

2003-04-21 10:08:52+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> > wroth: >>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >>> >>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >>> >>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >>> All I >>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >>> that >>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >>> of >>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >>> started >>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >>> you have >>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>> >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>So name them. That's all I'm asking. > I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to bomb them.

2003-04-21 10:10:55+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Tazana wrote: > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just > that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an > alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an > alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have > heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the > solution? The Franco-Russian proposal to flood Iraq with inspectors (under the protection of some 5-10K UN troops), tightening the conditions which would have to be met, plus expansion of the oil for food policy (also overseen by the UN to prevent corruption). That way, efforts would be made to alleviate the humanitarian situation, the regime would be rendered almost impotent without greatly destabilising the region, and any further attempts to stall the inspection process would result in a near universal support for the war that ensued. One scenario would be that WMDs would be confirmed (as Blix is now suspecting) as non-existent, the UN presence will remain, leading to an effective NFZ-style autonomy over much of Iraq, and Saddam's government would either have to toe the international line or be marginalised within its own country. The other probable scenario would be that Saddam continues to intimidate his scientists, or prevent progress on one point or another. Upon which the five permanent members of the SC will table a resolution, probably passed unanimously, to remove the Iraqi government which is blocking the UN inspections. After all, France and Russia will have a stake in enforcing their proposal. The campaign will have the support of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, since every effort has already been made to avoid armed conflict. The intimidating and overwhelming power of the western military will proceed as in the OTL, but the capture of every major city will be a joint western-Arab operation, to avoid adverse PR about a new 'Crusade'. The glut of troops on the ground will mean that policing will be a hugely less significant problem than in the OTL, particularly as there'll be an abundance of troops who speak the language. Reconstruction will hardly be a problem, with money pouring in from the EU, and probably some of Iraq's debts to various countries forgiven in an inexpensive PR coup. > That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe > all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war > protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not > hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be intact. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 10:14:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and their cities hadn't been looted...

2003-04-21 10:18:21+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. >> >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid bands of armed thugs, etc. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having been told to leave by the Iraqi people. > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly the case before.

2003-04-21 10:21:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@iwantnospam.crap> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in >> news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: >> >> >> >> > >> > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) >> > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few >> > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. >> > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a >> > bit has changed. >> >> Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families >> too. > And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" By the looks of things "we" don't classify looting, theft, arson even murder as crimes either.

2003-04-21 10:37:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: > Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money > france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms > to Iraq? I don't believe we were discussing arms sales to Iraq but the handing out of contracts to US companies prior to the war. I notice you haven't made any response to the post with the links confirming the "jobs for the boys" by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 11:42:07-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> > >> > > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> > >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> crowds, right now. > >> > > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> > >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> > >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > > > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were > >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then > >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The > US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons > of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction > of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those > in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot > that building. It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives > of the Iraqi people. This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no official rapists. They do not gouge out the eyes of children to correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical wires hooked to metal bed frames ? All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and facilities. It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian death and infrastructure damage. The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to save a single child's life ?" This works with the current Iraqi action as well. Is it not worth the effort to remove the threat of brutality and torture from a generation of Iraqi children ?

2003-04-21 12:25:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > bomb them. Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who have never done a heart operation before in your life? Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your list is accurate or not. Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they said the opposite. It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do so. The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us another one. Mike

2003-04-21 12:29:27+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:qpc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is >>> > not a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. > >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and > their cities hadn't been looted... Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. Now, you're "Commie-boy", taking the line that "Gee, it doesn't matter what a demon your ruler is, as long as the refrigerator stays on." Idiot. But, I now respect the Royal Marines even more than I did before. They are the ultimate the professional fighting forces, well trained, noble, and exemplary in every way. And they do their job knowing full well that they're protecting the likes of you, who could care less about the liberties you were born into. Mike

2003-04-21 12:53:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Laz wrote in message ... > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > replace any of what was lost. > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of > military equipment. > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 > weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > production and export infrastructure. The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as possible. If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have taken 3 days. And what happened to all the liberal handringing preaching of "these people know how to fight, you've only sent 250,000 troops, you're gonna be there forever and maybe even loose" that was all the rage a few weeks ago?

2003-04-21 15:04:15+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > -- > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > eaten. > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > whose > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > with > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > them. > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > the > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > military, > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > wars > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > year > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > and > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > > of military equipment. > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > taken > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > > production and export infrastructure. > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > hard not kill civilians, > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > to aim at and kill them too. > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Also you might want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 15:29:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > -- > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > eaten. > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > military, > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > replace any of what was lost. > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > of military equipment. > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > production and export infrastructure. > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > hard not kill civilians, Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not to aim at and kill them too. Pesky people spoiling the invasion! Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 15:42:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their >> government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the >> face when he met with him? >It would have been a start. Hmm. Funny how people who supported diplomacy over liberation are suddenly arguing against diplomacy. >Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own >folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose >much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. Nobody "kissed up to Saddam," except Jacques Chirac. The US condemned Saddam Hussein repeatedly. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:52:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing >> them instead. >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:54:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >>>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I >>>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that >>>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of >>>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started >>>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have >>>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>So name them. That's all I'm asking. >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Nope. Not a reasonable option. For one thing, it was ineffective, both logically and empirically. For another, it would have left Saddam Hussein in power. > Rather than attempting to >bomb them. Who bombed weapons inspectors? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:58:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Or are you just an idiot? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:59:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <t0d08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >>> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>>> crowds, right now. >>> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >>> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid >bands of armed thugs, etc. Other than having water, food, electricity, and no bands of armed thugs, etc. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. They haven't. >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly >the case before. Wrong. Did you see those palaces? Built by the looters "before." With impunity. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 16:11:41-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > > with power > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > > the only > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > > on those > > > notions. > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's poll supported that view.

2003-04-21 16:20:20-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BEED3B1FFmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u > $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. > > You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other > countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. > > In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. Ah, so anyone who may present a threat to the US is evil, got it. > > > Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop > bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective > navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good > manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Obviously you are unaware of the actions of your own government. The US ambassador to Canada has criticised and reprimanded our government at every public opportunity for the last month, throwing oil on an already hot political fire. There was actually discussion of expelling him from the country, but we can't since he's acting under orders from his superiors (and not just guilty of having a big mouth).

2003-04-21 16:20:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Laz" <nospam@wanted.here> wrote in message news:pan.2003.04.20.23.48.48.173081@wanted.here... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > > > > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > > > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > > security > >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > > and > >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > > Rwandan > >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > > where > >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > > one-sided public opinion can be! > > And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members > of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. > > Do you have some sort of point? Yes, but apparently it escapes you.

2003-04-21 16:27:23+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Mike Craney wrote: > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? [snip] > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING > in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? Erm, the past history of UN inspections shows that it's pretty good at finding things that Saddam would rather have hidden. Wasn't it something like 90% of WMDs proven to be destroyed since the last Gulf War? With the other 10% missing, due to administrative errors according to the Iraqis. Even marginals like that pathetic drone plane (made of balsa or somesuch), missiles which may conceivably be strapped together, and missiles which exceeded the maximum range by 10% were rooted out and either destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. And if they're so ineffective, I presume that you think that the current USMOVIC will be able to find the missing 10%? Insiders aren't so sure; hence the team's whopping increase in size to 1000 investigators. One source says that they'll need to find the Iraqi scientists to lead them to the weapons. Another says that, with the loss of documentation in the looting in the big cities, they've lost important evidence that may lead to the smoking gun. Perhaps they'll need to recruit those former members of UNMOVIC (the ones you thought were unqualified) that they'd courted earlier this month. > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I > live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough > decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety > of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. The intelligence guys may know stuff. However, I wouldn't trust them to tell us the truth, and even if they do, the government may still twist the evidence. The evidence put forward by Powell, Blair and others was thoroughly discredited before the first shots were fired. IIRC our intelligence guys forged the letters which said that Saddam was wanting to buy uranium from Niger; forgeries which the UN team thought were laughably amateurish (signed by an official who'd left the post 10+ years earlier). The inside information leaked by Powell was largely derived from a student's essay found on the internet (another product of our wonderful MI6). The CIA was publicly distancing themselves from government insinuations that Saddam was linked with OBL. And as for their effectiveness; the CIA lacked _any_ contacts in Afghanistan after the 911 incident. They didn't have _anyone_ who could give them up to date information on the situation on the ground. And not only in Afghanistan; this was the case in most of the rest of the world. The obsession with high-tech surveillance and gadgetry had led to the neglect of human information, which was less objective, more dangerous, but also considerably more rewarding. The Russians were said to have been astonished by the US approach to intelligence-gathering. > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. > Give us another one. The Labour MPs may yet be mollified, even if no WMDs are found, if Iraq is settled as per his promises, as a genuine democracy with the freedom to tell us to bugger off. And if the Israel-Palestine situation is sorted out with a degree of justice for the Palestinians. But, as seems increasingly possible, no WMDs are found, Iraq is turned into a US colony with orders to pump out the oil to the US and its allies (including the UK), and the Israel-Palestine issue is stymied yet again, Blair will be facing serious and serial revolts. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 16:45:02-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:%RIoa.21855$gK.132478@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > > > > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. Why should I have to do the work? There are plenty of anti-war web sites out there! However, here is brief (and by no means complete) list of preferred alternatives to THIS war. (Note that I do not necessarily approve any war.) This is a brief version of things I have posted previously in other forums. Steps to follow before making a decision: 1) Allow the new round of inspections to continue. There was no reason not to give Blix the few more months he wanted. (Oh, we moved our troops in too early, whine whine whine... ) 2) Based on the results from the new round of inspections, consider a more aggressive inspection system, and/or consider requiring the US to hand over some of the evidence they claimed to have so that banned weapons could be found. 3) At this point we either have solid proof that Iraq had banned weapons, we have no evidence of such weapons, or we have a series of questionable weapons amounting to a breach. Now it is time to make a decision as to the future. Option A: Do nothing. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and if no banned weapons were be found by aggressive searches and if Iraq continued to (more or less) cooperate than this situation is perfectly acceptable to me. Saddam would continue to be a relatively tame dictator and the world could deal with more serious problems, like Korea. (Before you give me some boo-hoo about the plight of the Iraqi people-- but are more than willing to sacrifice people in the war, of course-- I am not one of those people who sees a brighter future for Iraq now, nor do I approve of the decision to kill people because one country claims it can impose a better government than the previous dictator.) Option B: Further sanctions, restriction, etc. This is a good option if Iraq did have some questionable weapons, but nothing so damning that war was seen as the only option. Possibilities could include very aggressive inspections, very restricted trade, etc. Further sanctions against Iraq would be problematic, as Iraqis already lived under poverty in part due to sanctions. The current system, however, could have been tightened to remove power and control from Saddam himself (for example removing the oil-for-food program from his administration and placing it directly under the control of US overseers). Already about 60% of Iraqis depended on the oil-for-food program for basic necessities. Sanctions against countries trading with Iraq would also be called for. Option C: Use military force. This would only be acceptable if Iraq was clearly in breach of UN resolutions. This would only be acceptable if the war was lead by an international coalition with UN approval; if humanitarian aid was in place before the war started; if policing and support services were ready in time; and if a clear plan for Iraq's future was in place and approved both my other Arab states and by the UN. Option D: Stalemate. Ok, this is not really an option as such. If no decision could be made at the Security Council then no action could be taken against Iraq. The mature thing to do here is to respect the will of the global community (you can't always have thing your war, life sucks that war). Should the US have been unable to do that and still wanted to impose its wish on the world, then the honourable thing to do would be for the US to withdraw from the UN and thus no longer be bound by the UN Charter. So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to.

2003-04-21 16:51:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint > Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd > waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be > intact. A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his support up. Quite the move, politically speaking.

2003-04-21 17:08:06-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > > poll supported that view. > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, even if their policies sometimes make me cringe.

2003-04-21 17:10:17-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > >> Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint >> Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If >we'd >> waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still >be >> intact. > >A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on >political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and >he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we should have waited for the next century to roll around? I agree there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:08:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, tyger@never.invalid says... > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in > article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > > > > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank > territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed > then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the > Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. Everyone has four days to get out.

2003-04-21 18:24:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns93644B9912489mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > > >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > > bomb them. > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? > > What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for > the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President > of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United > States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who > have never done a heart operation before in your life? > > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in > those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? > > I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained > to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or > a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious > purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of > stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your > list is accurate or not. > > Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms > inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that > they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine > compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be > uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER > find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and > their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they > said the opposite. > > It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were > all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do > so. > > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in > the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on > that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line > of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. > > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us > another one. > > Mike > Very good thank you Mike. Also, I believe I asked for alternatives, not for things we have already tried. We did let the inspectors do their job for months. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 18:24:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >>> and >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >>> >> >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe this time would be any different? > >> I agree >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for >over 20 years before blocking it? I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like bin laden. >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their >continued existence? Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:44:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:29:03 +0000 (UTC), "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Not true. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. > >Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line >every country has blood on its hands. The best laid plans... You talk as if the US is just sitting back and pulling strings and Saddam Husein or whoever is only doing what we told him. If you want to play those kinds of games then the UK and Neville Chamberlain were really the ones responsible for WWII because they appeased Hitler. Games like that are silly. Ultimately people have to take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming someone else. The US seems to be the current boogie man that people like to blame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 20:36:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being > mad > > > with power > > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just > about > > > the only > > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies > based > > > on those > > > > notions. > > > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" > on > > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used > "good = > > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching > about > > > it. > > > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the > truth, > > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > poll supported that view. If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 20:56:53+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


uh no one in their right mind is a sadam sympathiser but in ignorance those who were/are pro war seem to think that those against the war are. Life isn't that black and white. I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the US who were pro war with Afghanistan or think that Bush is spot on with his war on terrorism but support the IRA Kathryn "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA3122B.F6473839@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > JoAnn Peeler wrote: > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > > You're welcome! > >

2003-04-21 21:55:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>> EGK wrote: >>>> >>>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >>> >>> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >>> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >>> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >>> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >>> of the neighbouring countries. >> >> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >> believe this time would be any different? > >Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. >> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >> funneling money to groups like bin laden. > >Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do >so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most >active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't >there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and >Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding >of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the >same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend it. >>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>> meant their continued existence? >> >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >> difference > >It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab countries. >who would have lent >visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their >(our) shared heritage. You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who knows what else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 22:09:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-D472E3.15580021042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > >> > great crowd pleaser. > > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > >> right now. > > >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Mark Evans said: >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. You Replied: They haven't. So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? > Or are you just an idiot? Compared to you I'm a frickin' genius, pal! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2965193.stm Caroline

2003-04-21 22:20:43+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:PLToa.5254$vs2.1175@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... > > > > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message > news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > > eaten. > > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > > whose > > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, > then > > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > > with > > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > > them. > > > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > > the > > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > > military, > > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible > to > > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > > wars > > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > > year > > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > > and > > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a > lot > > > of military equipment. > > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > > taken > > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the > oil production and export infrastructure. > > > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > > hard not kill civilians, > > > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers > for > > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > > to aim at and kill them too. > > > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > > > > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US has invaded! >Also you might > want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. MarketS - plural. More than one market in Baghdad was bombed. The first one killed 14 the second one killed over 50 Some general in his cushy pr job in Qatar said that one of them was either an American missile or an Iraqi missile... so much for army intelligence! http://www.pacifica.org/programs/peacewatch/ Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 22:25:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > foreign > > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > Post's > > > poll supported that view. > > > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then > > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > > My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us with it. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 22:27:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Papa Smurf wrote: > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > view. And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your point? -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 22:29:03+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:amr8avou0fv2u8t7p7unf0udnsdnfaqnh5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >EGK wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more > >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based > >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, > >>> and > >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off > >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American > >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his > >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > >>> > >> > >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > > > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the > >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, > >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed > >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe > this time would be any different? > > > > >> I agree > >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > > > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of > >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle > >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for > >over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private > money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to > terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they > want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic > groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like > bin laden. > > >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this > >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their > >continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > > America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line every country has blood on its hands.

2003-04-21 22:30:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net... > Papa Smurf wrote: > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > > view. > > And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your > point? My point was that I hope "our" PM does last out his term. That he doesn't speak for me, or the bulk of nonQueckers. That was the only point this go round. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 23:22:03+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >> and >> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >> > > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > should have waited for the next century to roll around? Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > I agree > there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their continued existence? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 00:14:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >-- >That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being >eaten. >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >> >> Laz wrote in message ... >> >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: >> > >> >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> >> using the companies of his pals. >> > >> >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >> >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. >> >> Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the >> Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. >> Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful >military, >> but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to >> replace any of what was lost. >> Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars >> but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year >> than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and >> wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot >of >> military equipment. >> Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken >4 >> weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil >> production and export infrastructure. > >The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn >hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as >possible. Which is why Baghdad has been without water and electricity for more than 2 weeks: someone in the military decided to take out that part of the infrastructure. The sewers are probably unusable too. But the oil field infrastructure matters and it's in perfect shape, electricity, water, everything. It's just a matter of priorities. And if US troops could prevent looting at the ministry of petroleum, why didn't they stop the gutting of Baghdad hospitals? If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have >taken 3 days. If the USA wanted a parking lot it would have used its primary weapon of mass destruction, just bigger than the 2 they've already used on Japan. But that might have damaged the oil infrastructure and killed Iraqi workers needed to keep the oil flowing. And the radioactivity would delay restarting the oil for too long. So you secure the oilfields, bomb Baghdad, take out the power, allow looting of all but the important building and declare a victory. The trick now is to win the peace without obviously ruling the place through a US controlled government when the Iraqis want something totally different which could result in the formation of at least 3 new countries, which the US has said it won't allow. So much for the Iraqi people having freedom to choose what they want.

2003-04-22 00:45:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... >> > >> > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> >> crowds, right now. >> >> > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >> > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't >> think >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot >> that building. > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. That'll teach them a lesson. >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives >> of the Iraqi people. > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no >official rapists. Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and >facilities. So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian >death and infrastructure damage. > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to >save a single child's life ?" What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding under it? You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the word "Heretic". Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"?

2003-04-22 00:55:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... >> > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current >> foreign >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the >> Post's >> > > poll supported that view. >> > >> > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. >> >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. >> > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us >with it. Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads.

2003-04-22 01:14:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure >> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why >> should we believe it would be any different now? > >Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French >and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and >the Russians. I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. Defying the French and the Russians? >The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries >has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq >threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was >ineffective in disarming Iraq? Of course they were. The only thing that disarmed Iraq was destroying a good share of their capability in the Gulf war and creating things like no-fly zones. >> I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government >> has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend >> it. > >I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself >continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in >your dealings with Iraq. Nope. I'm saying that it was a significant landmark in making people pull their heads out of their asses and realize if we sit back and do nothing or depend on the uselessness of the UN, we'll be hit again and again. >9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. >Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. Prove it. There were reported to be terrorist training camps in Iraq. I know you will choose not to believe that but frankly, I don't care. >Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 >months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. If we had waited another 2-3 months, France and Russia would have found new reasons to drag their heels. Thankfully, we no longer have to worry about it. >> No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was >> formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as >> they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab >> countries. > >The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling >on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a >united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries >would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. Obviously you have a lot of confidence in the UN. I believe the UN is useful as a Red Cross type of organization and that's it. They're useless everywhere else. My brother was stationed in Bosnia for 9 months. He came back telling me how the locals ignored the UN. If they wanted anything done, they went to the US or UK soldiers. >>> who would have lent >>> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >>> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >>> their (our) shared heritage. >> >> You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the >> same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who >> knows what else. > >How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing >except killing each other? Straw man. I never said that. It's still a fact that the Arabs routinely fight among themselves due to ethnic or religious differences. I'm afraid you're living in a dream world. The UN is probably dominated by the European >model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian >ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, >and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been >killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. >There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, >especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help >front the transition. > >The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some >affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite >the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, >demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal >backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would >things be the same? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 01:14:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, >tyger@never.invalid says... >> Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in >> article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... >> > >> > But Israel is not in Palestinian land >> > >> >> Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank >> territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed >> then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the >> Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. > >I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. > >Everyone has four days to get out. Too late. I called it Friday. But you can have Iraq. And Israel. Palestine too, if there's any of it left.

2003-04-22 01:27:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:2q0pa.38679$cO3.2948741@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > >> > > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > >> foreign > >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > >> Post's > >> > > poll supported that view. > >> > > >> > > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > >> do) then > >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > >> > >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > >> > > > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) > >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close > >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec > >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us > >with it. > > Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and > save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads. Or much more importantly we could stop paying billions to prop up a province that can't pay for it's own policies. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-22 01:39:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81rbe$m06$1@titan.btinternet.com>, "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to >> >this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant >> >their continued existence? >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. No, America didn't. Pakistan helped put the Taliban in power. America's involvement in Afghanistan was long over when the Taliban came to power. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. No, America didn't. Years after Saddam went to war, America gave agricultural credits to Iraq. Mostly corporate welfare for American farmers, but food for Iraq. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:50:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81mt3$ea0$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> >> right now. >> >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >> >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? >Mark Evans said: >>If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >>been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >You Replied: >They haven't. >So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? They're not. _Some_ Iraqis are protesting. Not "the Iraqis." _Some_ Iraqis have demanded that the US leave. "The Iraqi people" have not told the US to leave. See the difference? There are 20 million people in Iraq; if 20,000 are protesting then that means 99.9% of the population is not protesting. See how that works? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:52:33-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >Papa Smurf wrote: >> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >> view. >And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >point? No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:55:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


~snipped to make shorter~ > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. > > First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just to liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush administration is pushing that reason so strongly.We do however have the right to wage war on a country with or without the support of the UN when our national security is at stake.The COALITION FORCES have found terrorist training camps in Iraq and we have already been attacked numerous times by terrorists so I say that constitutes a national security issue.As for not publicly releasing the locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it was because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the inspectors arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to.We also had an Iraqi in the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that Saddam had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the locations of a few of these buried weapons caches.We couldn't tighten the oil for food program anymore because too many Iraqis were already starving and tightening the program further would have resulted in more starvation.We just found $680 million in US cash in a hidden stash.Why wasn't he using that to feed his people.The French and the Germans had a large financial stake in seeing Saddam stay in power to keep their billions in oil for military equipment contracts valid.Oh Yeah,and if this war was just for oil like so many anti-war people claim it is then why don't we just invade Canada.33% of all of our imported oil comes from Canada.The US produces 85% of all natural gas consumed in this nation domestically and the other 15% comes from Canada.We only import 2.5% of our oil form Iraq.However,if removing Saddam stabilizes the region,and there is already evidence that it is,ensures a reliable source of oil than that is ok,because oil is a national security issue.So this war is justified and screw the UN.They've only messed up just about everything else they've been involved in. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-22 02:00:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >> >> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >> of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone > believe this time would be any different? Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. >>> I agree >>> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >>> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >>> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. >> >> If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a >> point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a >> terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so >> far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's > private money is a lot different then the federal government giving > money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from > doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to > stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and > funneling money to groups like bin laden. Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. >> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >> meant their continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any > difference It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, who would have lent visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their (our) shared heritage. Apparently Garner placed the Museum second on its list of buldings to be protected, the oil offices fifteenth (out of sixteen). Instead, every effort on the ground was made to guard number 15, while numbers 2-14 were neglected. The excuse was that there weren't enough troops in the area. So why wouldn't the presence of additional troops with the motivation to guard their history have made a difference? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 02:15:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7va9l$4m56u$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, >> > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see >> > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will >> > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades >> > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to >> > do so. >> What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other >> countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our >> intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* >> probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later >> our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if >> our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the >> world would be much different than it is. >Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? >And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >great crowd pleaser. It wasn't meant to be; it was meant to be a warning. One can't be neutral in a fight between good and evil. And if one can't tell that Islamofascism is evil, one is too morally blind to exist. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 02:29:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > >> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>>> now removing them instead. >> >>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>and put on trial? >> >> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. > >Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt >the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic >and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? > >Interesting concept. Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel and the jews for every problem under the sun. It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to frame innocent arabs, dont you know? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 04:25:07+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >>> believe this time would be any different? >> >> Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have >> the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the >> surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language >> as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support >> across the political spectrum. > > You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure > to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why > should we believe it would be any different now? Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and the Russians. He will also be defying the last reasonable chance that the UN process has given him. The Franco-Russian initiative, if it foundered, will be met by a Franco-Russian proposal to depose the regime. Do you think that the UK and US will stand aside when this ultimate resolution is passed? And if the permanent members of the SC are united on an issue, do you think the other members will disagree? If the SC was united, do you think the ME would disagree? And I disagree with your opinion that the UN inspections were impotent. 90% of prohibited weapons were *proven* to be destroyed in the years in the inspection process. The other 10% was *unaccounted for*, reportedly due to administration errors. And now that the whole country is under US control, open to US-led inspections, those 10% are *still* unaccounted for, reportedly due to administration errors. The last round of inspections found nothing that significantly countered the prohibitions set by the UN; a partial result corroborated by the more reliable evidence from elsewhere. Weapons which *marginally* overlapped the boundaries were found, and destroyed. In the war just gone, we haven't encountered any weapons that the UN said weren't there. In the face of all this evidence, do you still maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? > The UN was just as > likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd > issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was > Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. > >>> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >>> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >>> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >>> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >>> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >>> funneling money to groups like bin laden. >> >> Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests >> to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist >> organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the >> US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special >> relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the >> target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by >> known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic >> about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >> the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > > I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government > has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend > it. I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in your dealings with Iraq. 9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. The 9/11 date has _nothing_ to do with Saddam. Saddam should have been overthrown, or at least marginalised within his own country, but it should have been done for the right reason, using the right process, observing existing laws, and with the right preparation. Wait another 2-3 months and you would have had the world on your side, the world's laws on your side, the world's resources at your disposal, in war and in the reconstruction. Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. As it is, Russia is quite correct in continuing to recognise Saddam as the Iraqi head of state until new democratic elections are held. >>>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those >>>> artefacts >>>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>>> meant their continued existence? >>> >>> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >>> difference >> >> It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, > > No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was > formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as > they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab > countries. The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. The US may provide 90% of the firepower, but what we've notably lacked was a communication channel with the Iraqi population - the UK troops less so due to their peacekeeping experience, but still noticeable. We've also lacked the will to protect cultural sites, and the manpower with which to do so. Just 10K Saudi and Syrian troops would have made a huge difference in the policing. >> who would have lent >> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >> their (our) shared heritage. > > You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the > same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who > knows what else. How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing except killing each other? The UN is probably dominated by the European model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help front the transition. The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would things be the same? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 06:02:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:hia5avchn3u8sasbhhe1ss5vesb2rk1p25@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans > <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: > > Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian > terrorists? > > Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? There have been some awful atrocities on both sides. At this point they're "both as bad as each other", so I fail to see how pointing out Palestinian terrorism excuses Israeli terrorism. I'd like both Arafat and Sharon taken to task and put before an international criminal court.

2003-04-22 06:08:16+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>> now removing them instead. > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? Interesting concept.

2003-04-22 06:13:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Mg0pa.38669$cO3.2946227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... > >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >> > > >> > > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is > not > >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> >> crowds, right now. > >> >> > > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> >> > >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as > usual. > >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> >> > >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >> > > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were > >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and > then > >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > > > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, > >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > > > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. > The > >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary > weapons > >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and > destruction > >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are > those > >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > > > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing > >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it > >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > > > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to > loot > >> that building. > > > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get > >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even > >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was > >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > > Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were > getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals > looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. > That'll teach them a lesson. > > >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the > lives > >> of the Iraqi people. > > > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you > >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in > >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no > >official rapists. > Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military > women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US > military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. The point that you deliberatly misread was that Saddam made a habit of having the wives of those who disagreed with him systematically raped in rooms designated solely for that purpose by people who only job was to brutalize innocent women. Not that you care about that, since it doesn't fit into your anti-us / anti-military view of the world. > >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to > >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to > >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for > >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a > >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first > >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. > > So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also > learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV > shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm > not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. They have been working diligently to find and report any semi-negative news from Iraq. But they were forced to admit to this when their reporters did interviews with American and British troops who were doing the shooting. > > > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? > >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the > >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical > >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? > > I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last > few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret > police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's > biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold > Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first > place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam > might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. Nice job of not admitting that it was happening here as well. Also, look up the CURRENT supporters of Iraqi finances. Russia and China top the list. The US comes in around number seven iirc. And it was France that sold them nuclear facilities, russia that sold them radar systems and jets. > >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family > >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, > >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice > >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > > Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down > that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the > street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the > street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage > treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? Make that assisting. The Iraqis were trying for about ten minutes to pull down that statue before getting help from that tank mover. And much like Europe, many people speak english in Iraq, they simply choose to speak their native tongue when speaking among themselves. I met over a hundred english speakers in Rabat, Morrocco, which is hardly pro-US. Also, it sounds like your Hate-America newspaper tends to overstate its crowd figures. Cnn, again, hardly pro-us, calls the numbers in the hundreds, and dwindling each day. Try to imagine hundreds of people protesting the lack of water and electricity to Saddam. Most of Bagdad did not have reliable sources of either under Saddam, but speaking out meant prison, torture, and possible death. Did you perchance hear about the mass graves being found containing political prisoners ? Protesting Saddam was a great way to visit one of them permanently. > > > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > > > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the > >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and > >facilities. > > So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water > systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving Now your starting to get it. Strange how the power and water stayed on the whole time we were dropping those highly dangerous bombs, but the day we took the Bagdad airport they both went out of commision. > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be > >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead > >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian > >death and infrastructure damage. > > > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to > >save a single child's life ?" > > What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war > based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look > under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding > under it? > You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the > word "Heretic". > Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"? Try reading the post above again. Concentrate real hard and count the number of times I used the word "Leftist". If you come up with a number greater than zero, then take you medicine and try again after it takes effect. When I speak of the "left", I am talking about the US political left. They are currently in a complete panic over being completely wrong about the decades long war involving tens of thousands of civilian deaths, complete with dead women and little babies crowding every street. Also, once again, nice job of altering the point so that you don't have to deal with the subject. Keep disecting word usage, and look for a spelling error or two. I'm sure that would be much more comfortable than actually acknowledging your own blind hatred.

2003-04-22 06:30:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-0CB06F.01523322042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>Papa Smurf wrote: > >>> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >>> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >>> view. > >>And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >>point? > > No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in > the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the > British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. > Before the bombing had started, the figures were around 70% against the invasion. Soon after "our boys" had started engaging the Iraqi troops, however, the figures edged in the opposite direction. The last figures I saw, at the height of the fighting, were in the region of 52% for, 48% against. So while you're technically correct when you talk of a majority, it's rather disingenuous to use "the British supported Blair" as a blanket statement.

2003-04-22 06:38:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:07o9avsbuoi6f5p7pl1a5ic703b04aah77@4ax.com: > On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >>news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> >>> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >>> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>>and put on trial? >>> >>> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. >> >>Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% >>innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of >>being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? >> >>Interesting concept. > > Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel > and the jews for every problem under the sun. I see. I don't read this group on a regular basis. As such, I'm rather distanced from its politics and relationships. It stands as a fair comment though - Sharon should be put up in front of some kind of international criminal court. > It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to > frame innocent arabs, dont you know? We all have our crosses to bear... ;)

2003-04-22 08:18:46+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>EGK wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> EGK wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>>>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>>>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >>>> >>>> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >>>> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >>>> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >>>> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >>>> of the neighbouring countries. >>> >>> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >>> believe this time would be any different? >> >>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. > You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to > happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we One of the major reasons for the UN's "impotence" is the ability of the 5 permement members of the security council to veto things they don't like. With the US being very keen on using it's veto in Middle East matters. > believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on > it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless > resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in > all of this. Whilst the inspections were going on there wasn't a risk of the kind of disaster which has now happened. Anyway it was the warmongering countries who demanded another resolution before accepting the return of UN inspectors. If Iraq feared inspectors why did they invite inspectors, including those from the US government into the country in the summer of 2002? >>> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >>> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >>> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >>> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >>> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >>> funneling money to groups like bin laden. >> >>Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do >>so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most >>active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't >>there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and >>Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding >>of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the >>same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >>the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government has > often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend it. What makes you think they are not doing so now and will not continue to do so in the future?

2003-04-22 08:59:07+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>>> now removing them instead. >> >>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>and put on trial? >> >> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. > Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt It's actually quite hard to find Israeli political leaders, especially heads of state who *don't* have terrorist connections. > the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic > and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? You might like to read http://www.spectacle.org/495/deir.html or even http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/irgunazi.htm

2003-04-22 09:07:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... >> >>It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be >>willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead >>of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian >>death and infrastructure damage. >> >>The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to >>save a single child's life ?" > What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war > based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look Ironic really given that Blair is the leader of a supposedly left wing political party... > under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding > under it? Isn't that simply replacing the idea of the "monster" under the bed with a "red" anyway. > You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the > word "Heretic". > Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"? Maybe because they are lazy.

2003-04-22 09:17:42+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <b81mt3$ea0$1@kermit.esat.net>, > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message >>> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >>> >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >>> >> > great crowd pleaser. >>> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >>> >> right now. >>> >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >>> >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >>> Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? >>Mark Evans said: >>>If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >>>been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >>You Replied: >>They haven't. >>So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? > They're not. _Some_ Iraqis are protesting. Not "the Iraqis." _Some_ > Iraqis have demanded that the US leave. "The Iraqi people" have not told > the US to leave. See the difference? > There are 20 million people in Iraq; if 20,000 are protesting then that > means 99.9% of the population is not protesting. See how that works? Oh the old "silent majority" claim. A nice sharp double edged sword. You can just as easily ask "What portion of Iraqi's population say they want the US there?" Or more interestingly "What portion of the population of the US and Britain campaigned *for* the invasion?" Not opinion polls, which can be trivially manipulated. People who actually got up and made their voice heard. Odds on more Iraqi's have said they want the invaders out than have said they want them to stay. Similarly more US and British citizens have said "no" to war than have said "yes".

2003-04-22 09:27:46+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: > EGK wrote: > >>> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure >>> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why >>> should we believe it would be any different now? >> >> Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the >> French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying >> the French and the Russians. > > I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. > Defying the French and the Russians? Begads. I dunno why I continue like this, since you cotinue to deliberately miss the point, but still. If Iraq chooses to defy the French and the Russians, he'll be defying 4 out of 5 permanent members of the SC. Since China will go along with the majority, that'll make it 5. The rest of the SC will go along with a united 5. Therefore Saddam will be defying a unanimous SC. If the SC decides unanimously to go to war, the vast majority of the world, including the Muslim countries, goes along. Therefore Saddam will be defying the world. >> The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many >> countries has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries >> has Iraq threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you >> maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? > > Of course they were. The only thing that disarmed Iraq was > destroying a good share of their capability in the Gulf war and > creating things like no-fly zones. 90% of their WMDs were known to be destroyed between GWI and GWII. GWI destroyed around 10%, and GWI none. That makes it around 80% due to inspections. The NFZs were designed to allow the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south respite from Saddam's persecution; the Kurds took the opportunity to create an effectively autonomous Kurdistan. They had *nothing* to do with WMDs and disarmament of prohibited weaponry. >>> I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US >>> government >>> has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend >>> it. >> >> I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like >> yourself continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a >> significant landmark in your dealings with Iraq. > > Nope. I'm saying that it was a significant landmark in making people > pull their heads out of their asses and realize if we sit back and do > nothing or depend on the uselessness of the UN, we'll be hit again > and again. Begads. It's like those who use the Holocaust to point everyone who dares to be critical of Israeli government policy as anti-semitic. It's history. Step back from it and see that everyone's experienced worse than 9/11, and often due to American meddling. If you're going to defy international law, at least be bold like the PNAC people and state that it's due to American power that you're doing things this way. Stop acting the victim. It's unseemly, and there are more pressing issues that concern you, such as the 11,000 gun-related deaths a year in your country. >> 9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. >> Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. > > Prove it. There were reported to be terrorist training camps in > Iraq. I know you will choose not to believe that but frankly, I > don't care. How can one prove a negative? One thing that I do know is that those reported terrorist training camps were deep inside the northern NFZ, ie. in areas *not* under Baghdad's control. You could have taken them out with Kurdish blessing, bombed them to pieces then sent in the paratroopers to gather evidence. >> Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited >> another 2-3 months, you could have deposed him by right of >> international law. > > If we had waited another 2-3 months, France and Russia would have > found new reasons to drag their heels. Thankfully, we no longer have > to worry about it. Iraq would have been defying a Franco-Russian initiative. It would have been in their interests to enforce their project. See above. Instead, we have to worry about the prospect of not finding evidence to justify having fought a war in defiance of the UN charter, and economic stagnation unless the majority of the world which was against this campaign finds it in their hearts to forgive Iraqi debts and invest money in building up the infrastructure. Russia is already talking about forgoing part of its debts in return for oil rights. NB. The US does not have the right, except by conquest, to thus divide Iraqi resources among the world. Any such agreements can probably justifiably be voided by any incoming, democratically elected government. >>> No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was >>> formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as >>> they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab >>> countries. >> >> The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were >> calling on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was >> coined. If a united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, >> neighbouring countries would have joined. The UN has a funny habit >> of uniting the world like that. > > Obviously you have a lot of confidence in the UN. I believe the UN is > useful as a Red Cross type of organization and that's it. They're > useless everywhere else. My brother was stationed in Bosnia for 9 > months. He came back telling me how the locals ignored the UN. If > they wanted anything done, they went to the US or UK soldiers. The UN consists of its constituent parts. If the world is united and resolved, the UN is united and resolved. The extra 2-3 months would have produced the necessary unity and resolution. See above. NB. GWI was the last time the SC unanimously decided to go to war. How effective was that in implementing its decision (to expel Iraq from Kuwait)? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 09:30:45+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <b7va9l$4m56u$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, >>> > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see >>> > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will >>> > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades >>> > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to >>> > do so. >>> What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other >>> countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our >>> intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* >>> probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later >>> our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if >>> our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the >>> world would be much different than it is. >>Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? >>And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >>you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >>great crowd pleaser. > It wasn't meant to be; it was meant to be a warning. One can't be neutral > in a fight between good and evil. And if one can't tell that Islamofascism > is evil, one is too morally blind to exist. Perverted religion is always dangerous. Dosn't matter if it's called "Islamic Fundermentalism", "Zionism", "Christian Fundementalism", "Nazism", etc. Once the name of God is used to call others "non humans", then there is most definitly evil involved. Thing is that evil people will often claim "they were bad", "It's for their own good". In order to spot them you need to look at their *actions*.

2003-04-22 09:32:23+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Paul Smith wrote: > David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > news:nieporen-0CB06F.01523322042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> >> No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier >> in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French >> perfidy, the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- >> supported Blair. > > Before the bombing had started, the figures were around 70% against > the invasion. Soon after "our boys" had started engaging the Iraqi > troops, however, the figures edged in the opposite direction. The > last figures I saw, at the height of the fighting, were in the region > of 52% for, 48% against. So while you're technically correct when > you talk of a majority, it's rather disingenuous to use "the British > supported Blair" as a blanket statement. Has there ever been a war during which the British public has not supported its troops? Even in Kosovo, IIRC, a majority of people supported British ground troops being deployed once the campaign was underway, despite their experiences in Bosnia. It's a case of 'we're in it together, might as well finish what we've started as best we can'. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 09:34:06+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>Papa Smurf wrote: >>> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >>> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >>> view. >>And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >>point? > No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in the > year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the British > -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. That explains why London saw it's biggest protests *against* the war in the history of the city. If the majority of Britain supported going to war where were they?

2003-04-22 10:00:13+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Papa Smurf wrote: > My point was that I hope "our" PM does last out his term. That he > doesn't speak for me, or the bulk of nonQueckers. That was the only > point this go round. Nae problem. Over here Blair must be hoping someone finds (or plants) WMD to justify his taking our troops to war against public opinion and his own partys opinion. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-22 10:01:47+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier > in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, > the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported > Blair. British public opinion was strongly *for* the war as long as it was with a UN mandate, and Blair stood up and said that he wouldn't act without that mandate. Opinion was against acting without the UN. After the first shot was fired public support for the troops went to 85+%. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-22 10:05:53+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mark Evans wrote: > Ironic really given that Blair is the leader of a supposedly left > wing political party... New Labour are turning out to be the Tory party in disguise, much to the disgust of a lot of their long time members and supporters. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-22 10:11:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1051001640.89420.2 @doris.uk.clara.net: > David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier >> in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, >> the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported >> Blair. > > British public opinion was strongly *for* the war as long as it was > with a UN mandate, and Blair stood up and said that he wouldn't act > without that mandate. Opinion was against acting without the UN. > > After the first shot was fired public support for the troops went to > 85+%. Sorry, but I have to chuckle. Did you read a paper, watch a tv news report, or listen to a talk radio station at all during the last few months? You've heard of Mori and Gallup, right? British public opinion was firmly *against* the war right up until the first shot was fired. I'd be grateful if you could provide a reference to that 85% figure too. In late January, there was a poll in the Sunday Times (fairly right-wing, Murdoch owned paper) in which 68% thought Blair had failed to convince them of the need for war with Iraq, and only 26% said they were convinced Saddam Hussein was dangerous enough to necessitate a war. The same month, a Gallup poll produced the following in response to the question: Are you in favour of military action against Iraq? Under no circumstances: 41% Only if sanctioned by the UN: 39% Yes: 10% Don't know: 10% In February, the BBC ran a poll which found that 45% of people said the UK should play no part in a war on Iraq - whatever the UN decides. "Three out of every five Britons think the UK and US Governments have failed to prove their case that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the research indicates." The Washington Post: "LONDON, Feb. 18 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing his toughest political battle since taking office over growing opposition to his support for President Bush and U.S.-led military action against Iraq, according to analysts and opinion polls. Blair, America's staunchest international supporter, has been hit by a series of setbacks in recent days, starting with an equivocal report by the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, to the Security Council last Friday. That was followed by Saturday's mass demonstration opposing a war, a protest now said to have attracted more than 1 million people, the largest political rally in British history. This morning, a new opinion poll showed Blair at his lowest approval rating in 21/2 years. (In the U.K.) Today's poll, conducted by ICM, showed 52% opposed to military action , with 29% in favor and the rest undecided. Meanwhile Blair's approval rating has dropped 9 points in the past two months - to 35% , the lowest level since September 2000, when Britain suffered a gasoline shortage."

2003-04-22 10:14:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


apologies for that - xnews decided to screw up that post :)

2003-04-22 11:36:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Prove it. Come on Davie-boy, where's your response? -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-22 13:07:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b82u3b$5k5no$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > EGK wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > EGK wrote: > > > >>> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure > >>> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why > >>> should we believe it would be any different now? > >> > >> Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the > >> French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying > >> the French and the Russians. > > > > I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. > > Defying the French and the Russians? > > Begads. I dunno why I continue like this, since you cotinue to deliberately > miss the point, but still. If Iraq chooses to defy the French and the > Russians, he'll be defying 4 out of 5 permanent members of the SC. Since > China will go along with the majority, that'll make it 5. The rest of the > SC will go along with a united 5. Therefore Saddam will be defying a > unanimous SC. If the SC decides unanimously to go to war, the vast majority > of the world, including the Muslim countries, goes along. Therefore Saddam > will be defying the world. > > The flaw here is that you assume that France would want him gone. As this is clearly not true, any proposals France made would be for world opionion molding only, and both they and Iraq would have none they would be meaningless like the other "absolute last chances" Saddam was given. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-22 13:27:28-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <upu28b.4hf.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >>"Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>>Papa Smurf wrote: >>>> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >>>> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >>>> view. >>>And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >>>point? >> No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in the >> year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the British >> -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. >That explains why London saw it's biggest protests *against* the war in the >history of the city. If the majority of Britain supported going to war >where were they? Not protesting, of course, since they had no reason to. The government was doing what they wanted. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 13:41:15-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <6rt28b.4hf.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >Oh the old "silent majority" claim. A nice sharp double edged sword. >You can just as easily ask "What portion of Iraqi's population say they >want the US there?" You could. And you wouldn't know, in either case. What you do know is that people who want the US there temporarily have no need to protest, since the US is there. People who support the US presence are more concerned with building a new government than with marching around and chanting. >Or more interestingly "What portion of the population of the US and Britain >campaigned *for* the invasion?" Not opinion polls, which can be trivially >manipulated. People who actually got up and made their voice heard. It's true that when looking at polls, one must examine the questions asked, to make sure that they're not biased one way or the other. It's even more true that the infantile attitude that leads to street protests is utterly worthless as a measure of public opinion. These people protest out of a need for therapy. It makes them feel better about themselves, that they're Doing Something. In short, primarily immature college students, the kind of people who talk about "feeling empowered." Demonstrations are not a sign of strength; they're a sign of weakness. "Look, nobody's listening to me. I need to get attention!" People who supported the liberation of Iraq had no need to protest, or to "campaign for" it. The government already agreed with them. >Odds on more Iraqi's have said they want the invaders out than have said >they want them to stay. Really? Which "odds" are those? 2:1? 4:1? How did you calculate them? >Similarly more US and British citizens have said "no" to war than have >said "yes". No. The vast majority of Americans said yes. The majority of British citizens did, also. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 17:04:01+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, jim.laker2@yahoo.com wrote in article <b82u3b$5k5no$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>... [elided] > > 90% of their WMDs were known to be destroyed between GWI and GWII. GWI > destroyed around 10%, and GWI none. That makes it around 80% due to Are you sure about this? Chemical weapons were used extensively in Gulf War I. It was horrible. And the thousands of survivors who somehow cling to life in veteran's hospitals and care centers envy the dead. In contrast, chemical weapons use is suspect during Gulf War II; however, they had infamous use against a civilian population after that conflict. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-22 19:08:47+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


>>Heck, you invaded Iraq despite > >>the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. Well, all I have to say is Bush said he wants to fight all terrorism, not just terrorism that is proven linked to OBL. People bring up 9/11 all the time, because that is what broke the camels back I guess you could say. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-22 19:21:08-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 22 Apr 2003 06:02:07 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >There have been some awful atrocities on both sides. At this point they're >"both as bad as each other", so I fail to see how pointing out Palestinian >terrorism excuses Israeli terrorism. I'd like both Arafat and Sharon taken >to task and put before an international criminal court. This is simply NOT the case. Blaming both sides is common among the PC obsessed. Meanwhile, in reality, the terrorists always attack FIRST. The Israelis respond. Some innocent Pals are sometimes killed in the response. Note the word 'response'. The process is so continual, that lines do get blurred, and reprisals are carried out for reprisals of reprisals........................ This is the point at which people come along and say "See, it's both sides". But this does not change the fact that Israel is acting as a result of Palestinian terrorism. If the terrorism ended, the responses would eventually end as well. Unfortunatley, the terrorists have no intention of ending their actions until Israel is COMPLETELY gone. Not just withdrawn to the 67 borders, but GONE. Read their charters. They have webpages. Israel, However, is NOT going to leave. The terrorists are NOT going to stop until Israel is gone. And you can see how the violence continues with no end in sight... The only way it will end is if the Palestinian terrorists stop their actions or are killed. Since they are not stopping, Israel is killing them. They simply have no other choice. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-22 22:37:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:32:20 GMT, Stimpson J. Cat trolled: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:29:27 GMT, Mike Craney >>Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion >>that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. >> >Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". > >He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11, jews in the media for >covering it up, plus countless other REALLY freaky things that are >dreamed up by only the most EXTREME prejudiced and gullible minds. The >term 'anti-semite' might be overused by some people. In the case of >Mark Evans, it is just dead on accurate. His hatred completely warps >his vision of reality, and it is just sick. Not much more you can say. > >And I am beginning to suspect he killfiled me. Which is fine. I have >been trying to bait him for a long time, just for kicks. His warped >reasoning behind the "Israeli attack" on 9/11 is REALLY funny. I was >hoping he would get into it again for our reading pleasure. No such >luck, I guess. My attempt at trolling has failed. :( > >Regards, Stimpson Happy to be of service. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 01:09:47+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1051002617.89757.0@doris.uk.clara.net>... >Mark Evans wrote: >> Ironic really given that Blair is the leader of a supposedly left >> wing political party... > >New Labour are turning out to be the Tory party in disguise, much to the >disgust of a lot of their long time members and supporters. There used to be a joke that the American Republican party was the equivalent of the British Tory party while the Democrats were the equivalent of the British Conservative party. Today it seems the Labour party and the Conservative party are pretty much like centrist Democrats. On the other hand, I'm not sorry that the Labour party lost so much of the loony left baggage from the 70s and 80s.

2003-04-23 01:14:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304220513.1ca1db4f@posting.google.com>... >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Mg0pa.38669$cO3.2946227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... >> >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >> news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is >> not >> >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> >> >> crowds, right now. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as >> usual. >> >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> >> >> >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >> >> > >> >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) >> were >> >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and >> then >> >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't >> think >> >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. >> > >> >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, >> >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... >> > >> >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. >> The >> >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. >> >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary >> weapons >> >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and >> destruction >> >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are >> those >> >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. >> > >> >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing >> >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it >> >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. >> > >> >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to >> loot >> >> that building. >> > >> >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get >> >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even >> >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was >> >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. >> >> Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were >> getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals >> looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. >> That'll teach them a lesson. >> >> >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the >> lives >> >> of the Iraqi people. >> > >> >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you >> >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in >> >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no >> >official rapists. >> Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military >> women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US >> military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. > >The point that you deliberatly misread was that Saddam made a habit of >having the wives of those who disagreed with him systematically raped >in rooms designated solely for that purpose by people who only job was >to brutalize innocent women. Not that you care about that, since it >doesn't fit into your anti-us / anti-military view of the world. > > >> >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to >> >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to >> >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for >> >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a >> >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first >> >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. >> >> So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also >> learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV >> shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm >> not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > >My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. My apologies. I have been wasting your time by treating your posts as if you were an intelligent human being. My bad.

2003-04-23 01:25:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <Xns9366351CD189Dozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >> Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt >>>notion that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. >> Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". >> He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11 >Really? Complete nonsense, of course - we all know it was the Saudis... Ah. Well, you should hear his theories about the fabrication of the tapes in which Bin Laden takes credit for it. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-23 01:26:26-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <vJlpa.40568$cO3.3080485@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Guig wrote in message <1051002617.89757.0@doris.uk.clara.net>... >>Mark Evans wrote: >>> Ironic really given that Blair is the leader of a supposedly left >>> wing political party... >>New Labour are turning out to be the Tory party in disguise, much to the >>disgust of a lot of their long time members and supporters. > There used to be a joke that the American Republican party was the >equivalent of the British Tory party while the Democrats were the equivalent >of the British Conservative party. > Today it seems the Labour party and the Conservative party are pretty >much like centrist Democrats. > On the other hand, I'm not sorry that the Labour party lost so much of >the loony left baggage from the 70s and 80s. But Galloway is still there, at least for now, though the latest revelations might finally do him in. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-23 01:33:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Growltiger wrote in message ... >Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, jim.laker2@yahoo.com wrote in >article <b82u3b$5k5no$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>... >[elided] >> >> 90% of their WMDs were known to be destroyed between GWI and GWII. GWI >> destroyed around 10%, and GWI none. That makes it around 80% due to > >Are you sure about this? Chemical weapons were used extensively in Gulf >War I. It was horrible. And the thousands of survivors who somehow >cling to life in veteran's hospitals and care centers envy the dead. In >contrast, chemical weapons use is suspect during Gulf War II; however, >they had infamous use against a civilian population after that conflict. Am I finally descending into senility, or are you alleging that Iraq USED chemical weapons against US troops during the "Desert Storm" operation? I followed events fairly closely (I pay taxes in the UK and the USA: I have an interest in how they are wasted) back then and I don't recall hearing that. I've also just done a Google search and found no mention of CW use. Now, afterwards, veterans started making disability claims for a thing named "Gulf War Syndrome" which they claimed was due to exposure to "Low level exposure to nerve and mustard gas". But there were no reports of the sort of full scale gas attacks used on Kurds or Iranians. Given t he way the US shot or bombed anything they could see, it may be that they destroyed chemical weapon stashes, exposing their own troops to the gases as they blew around and dispersed. But it is equally possible that what was making the veterans sick was exposure to wind-blown depleted uranium particles from US tank shells.

2003-04-23 01:46:59+00:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


> > > >> >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to > >> >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to > >> >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for > >> >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a > >> >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first > >> >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. > >> > >> So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also > >> learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV > >> shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? > I'm > >> not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > > > >My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. > > My apologies. > I have been wasting your time by treating your posts as if you were an > intelligent human being. > My bad. Guess your viewpoint would lump me in as either non-intelligent or non-human but from what angle do you view CNN as demonstrably and inarguably pro-us. They always seem to be trying to put stories in worst possible light whenever I catch them (admittly rarely). Generally you can judge a stations intent by the labels they use, the assumptions they make, and the stories they choose to focus on. From what I have seen, I wouldn't call CNN pro-us.

2003-04-23 02:32:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:29:27 GMT, Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion >that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. > Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11, jews in the media for covering it up, plus countless other REALLY freaky things that are dreamed up by only the most EXTREME prejudiced and gullible minds. The term 'anti-semite' might be overused by some people. In the case of Mark Evans, it is just dead on accurate. His hatred completely warps his vision of reality, and it is just sick. Not much more you can say. And I am beginning to suspect he killfiled me. Which is fine. I have been trying to bait him for a long time, just for kicks. His warped reasoning behind the "Israeli attack" on 9/11 is REALLY funny. I was hoping he would get into it again for our reading pleasure. No such luck, I guess. My attempt at trolling has failed. :( Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-23 02:49:47+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:37:47 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:32:20 GMT, Stimpson J. Cat trolled: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:29:27 GMT, Mike Craney > >>>Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion >>>that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. >>> >>Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". >> >>He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11, jews in the media for >>covering it up, plus countless other REALLY freaky things that are >>dreamed up by only the most EXTREME prejudiced and gullible minds. The >>term 'anti-semite' might be overused by some people. In the case of >>Mark Evans, it is just dead on accurate. His hatred completely warps >>his vision of reality, and it is just sick. Not much more you can say. >> >>And I am beginning to suspect he killfiled me. Which is fine. I have >>been trying to bait him for a long time, just for kicks. His warped >>reasoning behind the "Israeli attack" on 9/11 is REALLY funny. I was >>hoping he would get into it again for our reading pleasure. No such >>luck, I guess. My attempt at trolling has failed. :( >> >>Regards, Stimpson > >Happy to be of service. :) > > Thanks!! Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-23 04:11:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:4htbav0lov40cius8t9udnac0ee3nql2ii@4ax.com: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:29:27 GMT, Mike Craney > <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> >>Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt >>notion that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. >> > Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". > > He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11 Really? Complete nonsense, of course - we all know it was the Saudis...

2003-04-23 05:18:16-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<nOlpa.40574$cO3.3079751@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304220513.1ca1db4f@posting.google.com>... > >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<Mg0pa.38669$cO3.2946227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Enkil wrote in message > <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... > >> >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other > countries > >> >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" > is > not > >> >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> >> >> crowds, right now. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as > usual. > >> >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >> >> > > >> >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were > >> >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours > and > then > >> >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I > don't > think > >> >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > >> > > >> >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, > >> >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > >> > > >> >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. > The > >> >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > >> >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary > weapons > >> >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and > destruction > >> >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are > those > >> >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > >> > > >> >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing > >> >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it > >> >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > >> > > >> >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to > loot > >> >> that building. > >> > > >> >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get > >> >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even > >> >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was > >> >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > >> > >> Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were > >> getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals > >> looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. > >> That'll teach them a lesson. > >> > >> >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the > lives > >> >> of the Iraqi people. > >> > > >> >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you > >> >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in > >> >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no > >> >official rapists. > >> Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military > >> women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US > >> military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. > > > >The point that you deliberatly misread was that Saddam made a habit of > >having the wives of those who disagreed with him systematically raped > >in rooms designated solely for that purpose by people who only job was > >to brutalize innocent women. Not that you care about that, since it > >doesn't fit into your anti-us / anti-military view of the world. > > > > > >> >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to > >> >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to > >> >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for > >> >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a > >> >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first > >> >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. > >> > >> So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also > >> learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV > >> shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? > I'm > >> not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > > > >My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. > > My apologies. > I have been wasting your time by treating your posts as if you were an > intelligent human being. > My bad. Strange how your responses tend to take the form of personal insults without a single response to the content of the original post. There are dozens of different media outlets in Britain as well, including the anti-US ones you prefer. CNN has never actually been pro-US, and has even apologized on air for one of their anchors calling the US troops "Our Troops". They studiously insist on being what they call sceptical, but which is actually actively negative with regard to US policy. Lets see if you can come up with a coherent response to the above points, as opposed to reverting to kindergarten and calling me a few more names.

2003-04-23 08:28:22+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, aethelrede@worldnet.att.net wrote in article <O3mpa.40587$cO3.3082545@bgtnsc04- news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > Growltiger wrote in message ... > >Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, jim.laker2@yahoo.com wrote in > >article <b82u3b$5k5no$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>... > >[elided] > >> > >> 90% of their WMDs were known to be destroyed between GWI and GWII. GWI > >> destroyed around 10%, and GWI none. That makes it around 80% due to > > > >Are you sure about this? Chemical weapons were used extensively in Gulf > >War I. It was horrible. And the thousands of survivors who somehow > >cling to life in veteran's hospitals and care centers envy the dead. In > >contrast, chemical weapons use is suspect during Gulf War II; however, > >they had infamous use against a civilian population after that conflict. > > Am I finally descending into senility, or are you alleging that Iraq > USED chemical weapons against US troops during the "Desert Storm" operation? Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the first Persian Gulf War. That war reads like a replay of World War I: millions of lives lost in trench warfare with the added horror of chemical warfare. The survivors of the chemical warfare have been documented by all the news outlets in their recent coverage of this last conflict, which would the recent Iraqi-American-Anglo war. The second Gulf War would be Desert Storm. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-23 09:47:57+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > On the other hand, I'm not sorry that the Labour party lost so > much of the loony left baggage from the 70s and 80s. Aye, but it would be nice if one of our political parties actually gave a toss about the people of the country instead of getting their snouts in the trough as soon as elected. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-23 10:56:38+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > EGK wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> EGK wrote: >> >>>> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure >>>> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why >>>> should we believe it would be any different now? >>> >>> Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the >>> French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying >>> the French and the Russians. >> >> I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. >> Defying the French and the Russians? > Begads. I dunno why I continue like this, since you cotinue to deliberately > miss the point, but still. If Iraq chooses to defy the French and the > Russians, he'll be defying 4 out of 5 permanent members of the SC. Since > China will go along with the majority, that'll make it 5. The rest of the > SC will go along with a united 5. Therefore Saddam will be defying a > unanimous SC. If the SC decides unanimously to go to war, the vast majority > of the world, including the Muslim countries, goes along. Therefore Saddam > will be defying the world. Which ever if it had lead to war would have probably resulted in far more support to the Iraqi people. In terms of food, water and policing. As well as not enabling one country to systematically loot Iraq.

2003-04-23 11:12:47+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote: >>>Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >> >>the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > Well, all I have to say is Bush said he wants to fight all terrorism, not He might claim that but he has shown zero evidence of actually doing this. The Bush administration only appears interested in people who are Arab and/or Moslem. Whilst they show little restraint in tossing such people in jail on the weakest of pretexts. You don't see the US authorities chasing down people with financial links to the IRA and tossing them in prison. You don't see attempts to ensure that the US government itself is free from terrorist links. You see some people being set free, rather than tossed in jail, whilst doing highly suspicious things just because they have citizenship of a certain foreign country. > just terrorism that is proven linked to OBL. People bring up 9/11 all the If it's so irrelevent then why was Bush so eager to link OBL and SH in people's minds? > time, because that is what broke the camels back I guess you could say.

2003-04-23 11:14:59+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:last7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> >> There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >> the current US president. > Rule of Law. Got a problem with it? Try "laughing stock of the planet". > Besides, what does that have to do with Iraq? (ANSWER: not one damn thing) Iraq also engauged in joke elections, as does Zimbabwe.

2003-04-23 11:16:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazzy <tazzy_canada>)


Oh will you guys find an *appropriate* NG for this shit?!? Just in case I'm being too subtle *GO AWAY* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tazzy

2003-04-23 11:19:00-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >other >> >than Iraq exist. >> >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you >devolve >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. >The war >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. > >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. > >I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people are >idiots nor worthy of much respect. So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy of much respect? > Plenty of people have made >personal remarks about me as well, that's part of the territory called >Usenet. When I see an ad hominem I call them on it, but not all >personal attacks are ad hominem fallacies. > >If you don't like what I post, feel free to kill-filter me. I don't >think all that highly of your responces either, so I certainly won't >mind. > >Have a good day now.

2003-04-23 11:19:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:hdn8av4fqspcvloj2h53o13nl1inol5hhg@4ax.com... > >A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more > >patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on > >political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and > >he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off > >his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American > >public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his > >support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > > > > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent waiting > for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we should have waited > for the next century to roll around? I agree there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 > directly but there is much that ties them to terrorist organizations and > shows they've actively supported them. I think 9/11 was the day our > patience as a country wore out. Patience, to me, means waiting until a process you have started has completed. Is that so hard to understand? You hyperbole aside, there was a clear goal a few months (at most) away at which time an informed decision could have been made. I agree with you that the US has become very irrational after 9/11, and needs a good dose of common sense. Unfortunately a country can't plead temporary insanity as an excuse for condoning the killing of thousands in its pet wars. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 11:21:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > >>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then >>> the >> >> Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic >> government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a >> deemocracy. > Obviously. I expected the readers (that's you) to make the obvious > derivation that all we can do is support the creation of a democratic > framework, defend the framework while it builds a a governmental > infrastructure, and hope that the people can take it from there. The way things are going Iraq could easily end up as a theocracy by default. Whilst the occupying forces are doing nothing to maintain, let alone build government the people have started to turn to the only group who can be bothered, the clerics... >> On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic >> governments in the last century or so. > Without objection. Finally we've got a government that's turning over a new > leaf. You should be happy that we're addressing this shortcoming. Where's the evidence for this?

2003-04-23 11:21:53-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b823st$5hhut$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone > > believe this time would be any different? > > Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the > sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding > Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It > would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues other than Iraq exist. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 11:36:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> >> I must have missed the US government being purged of the people >> who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. > You need a purge? Stripping them of their power isn't enough? (Geez, some > people are never satisfied.) Purged as in such people being *removed* from the US government, stripped of all power. >> >> Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. > Not odd. Think through the process. You do think, don't you? What war crimed does the US intend committing? >> >>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >>> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now >>> removing them instead. >> >> So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >> and put on trial? > You don't, because he's not a totalitarian dictator. He serves at the will > of his people. They have things there called E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S. Odd how being *ELECTED* dosn't matter to the US government when the person in question is someone they don't like. e.g. Yasser Arafat, even Saddam Hussein. Anyway the accusations made against Mr Sharon predate his being elected to *anything*.

2003-04-23 11:36:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues other >than Iraq exist. Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you devolve in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. The war is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 11:53:17-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:pi1pa.561860$L1.163435@sccrnsc02... > ~snipped to make shorter~ > > > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" > > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have > > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any > > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. > > > > > First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just to > liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush administration is > pushing that reason so strongly. I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- even those we dislike-- we send a message that diplomacy is dead, and that no country can turst another. > We do however have the right to wage war on > a country with or without the support of the UN when our national security > is at stake. I disagree, and the US is bound by the UN Charter because the US is a member of the UN. The US was not under any threat justifying a claim of self-defence, or even a threat to its "national security". There was no justification for this war based on defence. > The COALITION FORCES have found terrorist training camps in Iraq > and we have already been attacked numerous times by terrorists so I say that > constitutes a national security issue. I take those claims with a grain of salt... and think that if the US really wanted to fight terrorism other targets would have taken priority over Iraq. > As for not publicly releasing the > locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it was > because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the inspectors > arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to. Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed then some weapons could have been found. Blix is now suggesting much of the US evidence was faked or spurious, which I find very likely and is supported by other reports over the last few months. I quote: Blix said weapons inspectors had "no great difficulty" proving documents that passed U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. "Who falsifies this?" asked Blix. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/22/blix_030422 > We also had an Iraqi in > the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that Saddam > had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the locations of a > few of these buried weapons caches. Again I will believe this when it is verified by outside investigators. That being said I have agreed all along that Saddam may have had a few banned weapons, but I do not believe he had any significant amounts of banned weapons in a ready-to-use form. >We couldn't tighten the oil for food > program anymore because too many Iraqis were already starving and tightening > the program further would have resulted in more starvation. Wrong. Among other ideas, the program could have been removed from Iraqi control (they distributed goods) and placed under direct control of a UN official. > We just found > $680 million in US cash in a hidden stash.Why wasn't he using that to feed > his people.The French and the Germans had a large financial stake in seeing > Saddam stay in power to keep their billions in oil for military equipment > contracts valid. A drop in the bucket; see note above. > Oh Yeah,and if this war was just for oil like so many > anti-war people claim it is then why don't we just invade Canada.33% of all > of our imported oil comes from Canada.The US produces 85% of all natural gas > consumed in this nation domestically and the other 15% comes from Canada.We > only import 2.5% of our oil form Iraq.However,if removing Saddam stabilizes > the region,and there is already evidence that it is,ensures a reliable > source of oil than that is ok,because oil is a national security issue. First I am not suggesting that securing an oil supply was the only reason, or the main reason, for this war. Only a fool would think that oil had nothing to do with this, however US companies will directly profit from this oil as the supplies are privatised under foreign (in other words US) ownership. > So > this war is justified and screw the UN.They've only messed up just about > everything else they've been involved in. This war was not justified, except as an exercise in abuse of power and a way to distract Americans from domestic issues. It can be rationalised using a great many arguments, but the sum of weak arguments is a weak case. As to your claims about the UN, I challenge you to demonstrate that the UN has "messed up" in "everything". Remember in posting proof of that statement that the Security Council is only one body of the UN. As a case in point, the World Health Organisation has been instrumental in obtaining data from China on the SARS epidemic. I refer you to the following chart of the UN, so you see how many bodies you claim have "messed up". http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 12:00:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the > >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues other > >than Iraq exist. > > > Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you devolve > in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. The war > is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. No, I don't plan on getitng over it. I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people are idiots nor worthy of much respect. Plenty of people have made personal remarks about me as well, that's part of the territory called Usenet. When I see an ad hominem I call them on it, but not all personal attacks are ad hominem fallacies. If you don't like what I post, feel free to kill-filter me. I don't think all that highly of your responces either, so I certainly won't mind. Have a good day now. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 12:03:28+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On 22 Apr 2003 06:02:07 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >> >>There have been some awful atrocities on both sides. At this point they're >>"both as bad as each other", so I fail to see how pointing out Palestinian >>terrorism excuses Israeli terrorism. I'd like both Arafat and Sharon taken >>to task and put before an international criminal court. > This is simply NOT the case. Blaming both sides is common among the PC > obsessed. > Meanwhile, in reality, the terrorists always attack FIRST. The > Israelis respond. Some innocent Pals are sometimes killed in the > response. Note the word 'response'. The process is so continual, that > lines do get blurred, and reprisals are carried out for reprisals of > reprisals........................ The problem with this claim is that the first terrorists appeared amongst the Zionists. In the late 1920's. These people were never brought to justice instead they became part of the Israeli state. Palestinian groups only appeared *decades* later in *response* to continuing Zionist attacks. > This is the point at which people come along and say "See, it's both > sides". > But this does not change the fact that Israel is acting as a result of > Palestinian terrorism. If the terrorism ended, the responses would > eventually end as well. With Israel deciding when it has ended and only Israel deciding if something is the results of an individual acting alone or something sanctioned by the PA... There's also the matter of "eventually", how long before something is no longer a "response"? > Unfortunatley, the terrorists have no intention of ending their > actions until Israel is COMPLETELY gone. Not just withdrawn to the 67 Israel not being there would be bad, because? Sure it would be bad for some Israelis (except those who have claimed Polish citizenship and those who have joint US/Israeli citizenship who can easily leave anytime they want.) it would be very bad for those connected with the IDF and Mossad. But how would it be bad for the world. > borders, but GONE. Read their charters. They have webpages. No-one is obliged to recognise any nation state. Anyway the calls for Israel to be erased from the map don't just come from Palestinians. You can easily find web pages written by Rabbis (both Sephardic and Askanazi) who insist that the Israeli state should go. Some of the language they use makes someone like Yasser Arafat look moderate. > Israel, However, is NOT going to leave. It's only been there for 53 years, far older states have ceased to be.

2003-04-23 12:11:19-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >other >> >than Iraq exist. >> >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you >devolve >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. >The war >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. > >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq and create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be happy again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 12:27:02+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:29:27 GMT, Mike Craney > <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion >>that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. >> > Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". You mean your, and other pro-Israel Nazis, popular strawman. Unlike you, I am well aware that there is no homogenous "Jews". But go on believing that there exist some group of people who are all pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. You insult Jewish people with sterotypes, ignoring their diversity even their humanity, then claim than anyone who challenges your narrow minded view is anti-Jew. Actually what I said is that there is at least as much evidence pointing to Israel as there is pointing to Al Queda. Specifically the sickos who were caught dancing as the WTC burned, the warnings sent to Odigo and Zim shipping breaking it's lease to move out of the building. Circumstantial evidence, but so is all the US government has come up with to support their prefered conspiracy theory. However until someone can come up with some *solid* evidence, not planted "clues" or hijackers using stolen identities all we have are theories and speculation. > He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11, jews in the media for > covering it up, plus countless other REALLY freaky things that are I said this in which posts, go on produce your citations.

2003-04-23 12:31:11+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Papa Smurf wrote: >> My point was that I hope "our" PM does last out his term. That he >> doesn't speak for me, or the bulk of nonQueckers. That was the only >> point this go round. > Nae problem. Over here Blair must be hoping someone finds (or plants) WMD to > justify his taking our troops to war against public opinion and his own > partys opinion. Or some documents to discredit a Labour MP he dosn't like. Some which just happen to be intact in a burned out building, must be made of the same paper hijacker's passports use... That's lucky. But then some people make their own luck.

2003-04-23 12:35:10-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b86do8$6shmc$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >> >other than Iraq exist. >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you devolve >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. The war >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. >My side is Humanity, No, your side is -- was -- Saddam Hussein. You were desperate to keep him in power. Anything to keep him there. Inspections. Security Council resolutions. Non-existent "laws." Anything. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-23 12:35:58-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <o1fdavkjicfjlirdeedvkk09hu4jhhtl2n@4ax.com>, "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you devolve >>> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. The war >>> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. >>My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >>No, I don't plan on getitng over it. >>I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people are >>idiots nor worthy of much respect. >So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy >of much respect? There's an old saying: leftists love humanity. They just hate people. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-23 12:43:28+00:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:m0o58b.eqa.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > In alt.tv.angel Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > EGK wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > >> wrote: > >> EGK wrote: > >> > >>>> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure > >>>> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why > >>>> should we believe it would be any different now? > >>> > >>> Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the > >>> French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying > >>> the French and the Russians. > >> > >> I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. > >> Defying the French and the Russians? > > > Begads. I dunno why I continue like this, since you cotinue to deliberately > > miss the point, but still. If Iraq chooses to defy the French and the > > Russians, he'll be defying 4 out of 5 permanent members of the SC. Since > > China will go along with the majority, that'll make it 5. The rest of the > > SC will go along with a united 5. Therefore Saddam will be defying a > > unanimous SC. If the SC decides unanimously to go to war, the vast majority > > of the world, including the Muslim countries, goes along. Therefore Saddam > > will be defying the world. > > Which ever if it had lead to war would have probably resulted in far more > support to the Iraqi people. In terms of food, water and policing. As > well as not enabling one country to systematically loot Iraq. Except that if reality is any judge, we would just have really gotten 75+ more uninforced ultimatums, UN and Euro hand ringing, and twelve more years of oppression, torture and murder for the Iraqi people. Need I repeat the definition of insanity? -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-23 12:47:04+00:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Tazzy @hotmail.com>" <tazzy_canada<nospam> wrote in message news:ACupa.147640$jVh.17040@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > Oh will you guys find an *appropriate* NG for this shit?!? > Just in case I'm being too subtle *GO AWAY* > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Tazzy > It's easy enough not to read a thread, why try to suppression the expression of some folks that are venting frustration and inanity? -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-23 13:44:33-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:22:46 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >> >other >> >> >than Iraq exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you >> >devolve >> >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. >> >The war >> >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. >> > >> >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >> >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. >> >> Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq >and >> create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be >> happy again. > >They are a majority group. Y'see in a democracy if a majority group wins >in elections that pretty much makes them the people in charge. That is why democracies are so dangerous. > >Or is that not the type of democracy the US is interested in making sure the >Iraqi people get? Is there one form of democracy for America and another >form for its colonies? America is not a democracy, never has been, hope to God Almighty it never will be. > >Caroline >

2003-04-23 14:32:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:22:46 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >> >other >> >> >than Iraq exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you >> >devolve >> >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. >> >The war >> >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. >> > >> >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >> >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. >> >> Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq >and >> create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be >> happy again. > >They are a majority group. Y'see in a democracy if a majority group wins >in elections that pretty much makes them the people in charge. > >Or is that not the type of democracy the US is interested in making sure the >Iraqi people get? Is there one form of democracy for America and another >form for its colonies? Miss the point did ya? I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" blame game. I do not know of any islamic fundamentalist country that is a democracy. This goes to my personal disagreement with the US's war efforts and so-called nation building. We'll most likely just trade one despot for another. That's how it's most often worked out. One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 14:32:46+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


blucas1@mindspring.com (Enkil) wrote in news:58e03e6b.0304230418.1769741f@posting.google.com: > Strange how your responses tend to take the form of personal insults > without a single response to the content of the original post. > There are dozens of different media outlets in Britain as well, > including the anti-US ones you prefer. CNN has never actually been > pro-US, and has even apologized on air for one of their anchors > calling the US troops "Our Troops". They studiously insist on being > what they call sceptical, but which is actually actively negative with > regard to US policy. I've just returned from spending almost a month in the US, and I find it laughable that you can for one minute consider CNN as being anything other than pro-US. Granted, it's not as rabidly moronic as FOX or MSNBC, but it's not that far off. The so-called journalists working for your main TV news stations should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. There's no calm, impartial analysis of the situation - watching CNN/MSNBC/FOX is like watching a combination of MTV and a Jerry Bruckheimer movie trailer. Having said that, you have some fine journalists working for a few of your major newspapers, so all is not lost :) Oh, and C-Span is a wonderful network of channels. I wish I could get it over here... hmm.. maybe I can <goes off to check cable packages>

2003-04-23 14:34:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-32E063.01254723042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <Xns9366351CD189Dozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, > Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >>> Actually, his famous line is, "The jews did it". >>> He blames Israel for attacking the US on 9/11 > >>Really? Complete nonsense, of course - we all know it was the >>Saudis... > > Ah. Well, you should hear his theories about the fabrication of the > tapes in which Bin Laden takes credit for it. The one with the morris dancers in the background, and the heavy rock music soundtrack? Yeah, I'd have thought that one was faked...

2003-04-23 14:36:22-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:19:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in >message news:o1fdavkjicfjlirdeedvkk09hu4jhhtl2n@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people >are >> >idiots nor worthy of much respect. >> >> So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy >> of much respect? > >Yes, exactly. Doesn't sound like you think much of Humanity.

2003-04-23 14:58:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: Is there one form of democracy for America and another > form for its colonies? > > Caroline you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the sooner we can leave. -- parismom File-Manager for Senior Moments For the rest of my busy existence, please visit: http://www.hopewellframe.com Things I learned from my Dad: 1. As people get older, they don't change; they become *more so.* 2. If something's wrong, and it can be fixed with money, it's not *that* bad. 3. You can't go wrong doing the right thing.

2003-04-23 15:16:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com... > >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. > >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. > > Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq and > create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be > happy again. If it makes you happy to think that, go ahead. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 15:19:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:o1fdavkjicfjlirdeedvkk09hu4jhhtl2n@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people are > >idiots nor worthy of much respect. > > So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy > of much respect? Yes, exactly. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 15:21:39-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net>)


i still think your choice of the word "colonies" was ironic. Caffeine Cal wrote: > > "parismom" <parismom.woof@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:3EA6E269.5BE282B4@verizon.net... > > > > > > Caffeine Cal wrote: > > Is there one form of democracy for America and another > > > form for its colonies? > > > > > > Caroline > > > > you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand > > that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last > > thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the > > world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the > > sooner we can leave. > > And I truly hope that's what happens. Nothing would make me happier than to > be proven wrong on this issue - that the troops leave and let the Iraqis > form their own government "for the people, by the people, of the people" > without the need for a coalition presence. But give it a couple of years > and we'll see if the troops are still there and what "reason" they come up > with. > > Caroline -- parismom File-Manager for Senior Moments For the rest of my busy existence, please visit: http://www.hopewellframe.com Things I learned from my Dad: 1. As people get older, they don't change; they become *more so.* 2. If something's wrong, and it can be fixed with money, it's not *that* bad. 3. You can't go wrong doing the right thing.

2003-04-23 15:22:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. My god. Get a clue. They're on sale now. >There's a kettle on line one that wants to discuss colours with you. See above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 15:48:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:ooqdavg1q904j0s5if3clm7fpeuq28oete@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:19:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in > >message news:o1fdavkjicfjlirdeedvkk09hu4jhhtl2n@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people > >are > >> >idiots nor worthy of much respect. > >> > >> So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy > >> of much respect? > > > >Yes, exactly. > > Doesn't sound like you think much of Humanity. I don't. In fact, I sometimes wonder if we'll just do the planet a favour and go extinct-- and thus give some other species a shot at the planet. For now, though, the greater point is that I side with Humanity as a whole, not specific factions. Nations, religions, ideologies... these are all artificial divisions, none more worthy than the whole, and none worth murdering others for. Being something of an optimist, I hold some hope that Humanity will evolve... but we seem to be very slow learners. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-23 15:48:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:36:22 -0500, "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:19:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" ><blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in >>message news:o1fdavkjicfjlirdeedvkk09hu4jhhtl2n@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >I sometimes make personal remarks against people, yes, most people >>are >>> >idiots nor worthy of much respect. >>> >>> So your side is Humanity despite most people being idiots not worthy >>> of much respect? >> >>Yes, exactly. > >Doesn't sound like you think much of Humanity. He actually sounds like he'd make a good candidate for my new-age theology I started and call "Assholism". Actually Everyone is a good candidate. The main tenet is that all people are born assholes and only a very, very few ever manage to rise above their inherent Assholery. This would be your Mother Theresa types so before you ask, I'm not one of them. I've toyed with the idea of taking this show on the road for some time. I think it could be the new Scientology or maybe FreeMasons. It hardly speaks well of humanity but I think it's much more open to the attitudes of the masses meaning more money for the person who started it all. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 16:55:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, me@privacy.net wrote in article <2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com>... > Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq and That's Shiite to you, EGK. Those who adhere to the Shia way of Islam are called Shiites here in the West. I apologize for the spell-check but the word you used has, well, a scatological meaning for many. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-23 17:07:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:58:13 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> wrote: >> >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >> My god. Get a clue. They're on sale now. > >I got mine on discount... how about you? Obviously you can't even read what you yourself write. "no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11"??? You do know that bin laden headed Al Qaida and admitted it don't you? Maybe you meant Iraq or do you think Al Qaida was Iraqi? Or are you one of those who claim it must have been Israeli agents out to discredit organizations like Al Qaida? >http://slate.msn.com/id/2070410/ >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story >http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1077 > >The majority of hijackers were from American ally Saudi Arabia, but Bush >won't bomb that bitch because they're friendly dictators who oppress their >people, but hey, they jump to the US's tune so let's just ignore that. Oil >wells that ends well. > >Bush's attempts to associate Saddam with September 11 seems to be working on >sections of the public that are as stupid as he is. Given what you wrote, and failed to correct, I think you should look in the mirror. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 17:13:26-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>)


Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on Saudi soil Why were US troops on Saudi soil? Because they were defending the Saudis from Saddam . . . > From: "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > Organization: Esat Net Customer > Reply-To: "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.tv.angel > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:34:24 +0100 > Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > > > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:dpvdavc9ba2l7gcvdqeul2t32uhug0qmaj@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:58:13 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > <coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" >>> <coconnell@esatclear.ei> >>>> wrote: >>>>> And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >>>> > > Penny dropping. Clue recieved. My bad. Saddam and 9/11 > > http://slate.msn.com/id/2070410/ > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story > http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1077 > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp > http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm > > All links now more relevant. > > Caroline > Happily acknowleges when she's wrong. > >

2003-04-23 18:27:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:34:24 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:dpvdavc9ba2l7gcvdqeul2t32uhug0qmaj@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:58:13 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" >> ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> >> wrote: >> >> >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >> > >Penny dropping. Clue recieved. My bad. Saddam and 9/11 Since I never argued there was proof of Iraq involvement in 9/11, I really couldn't figure out whether you'd made a mistake or not. Some people really do believe Israel was responsible for it for instance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-23 19:22:46+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the > >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues > >other > >> >than Iraq exist. > >> > >> > >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you > >devolve > >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. > >The war > >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. > > > >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. > >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. > > Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq and > create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be > happy again. They are a majority group. Y'see in a democracy if a majority group wins in elections that pretty much makes them the people in charge. Or is that not the type of democracy the US is interested in making sure the Iraqi people get? Is there one form of democracy for America and another form for its colonies? Caroline

2003-04-23 19:57:51-04:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote: >Guess your viewpoint would lump me in as either non-intelligent or non-human >but from what angle do you view CNN as demonstrably and inarguably pro-us. >They always seem to be trying to put stories in worst possible light >whenever I catch them (admittly rarely). Generally you can judge a stations >intent by the labels they use, the assumptions they make, and the stories >they choose to focus on. From what I have seen, I wouldn't call CNN pro-us. CNN and other networks are now taking heat for hiding how bad the attrocities of SH were. A CNN editor apparently touched this off by admitting in a column that they downplayed the attrocities of SH. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-23 20:00:06+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:22:46 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >> >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... > >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the > >> >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues > >> >other than Iraq exist. > >> >> > >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you > >> >devolve > >> >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. > >> >The war > >> >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. > >> > > >> >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. > >> >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. > >> > >> Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq > >and > >> create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be > >> happy again. > > > >They are a majority group. Y'see in a democracy if a majority group wins > >in elections that pretty much makes them the people in charge. > > > >Or is that not the type of democracy the US is interested in making sure the > >Iraqi people get? Is there one form of democracy for America and another > >form for its colonies? > > Miss the point did ya? I certainly think you have. In this thread a few paragraphs up, you berate Black Sheep for making personal attacks. Yet that's all you do. You level scurrilous accusations towards people who are against this war and hegemony such as: "I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british soldiers had come back in body bags. You'll also probably be one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings... Are you descended from Neville Chamberlain perhaps?" "I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost" >I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" blame game. Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful attacks. > One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation > building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. There's a kettle on line one that wants to discuss colours with you. Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-23 20:06:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"parismom" <parismom.woof@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3EA6E269.5BE282B4@verizon.net... > > > Caffeine Cal wrote: > Is there one form of democracy for America and another > > form for its colonies? > > > > Caroline > > you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand > that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last > thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the > world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the > sooner we can leave. And I truly hope that's what happens. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong on this issue - that the troops leave and let the Iraqis form their own government "for the people, by the people, of the people" without the need for a coalition presence. But give it a couple of years and we'll see if the troops are still there and what "reason" they come up with. Caroline

2003-04-23 20:59:17-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <MkFpa.76268$ja4.5054934@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >parismom wrote in message <3EA6E269.5BE282B4@verizon.net>... >>Caffeine Cal wrote: >>> Is there one form of democracy for America and another >>> form for its colonies? >>you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand >>that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last >>thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the >>world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the >>sooner we can leave. > The way the US troops left Germany in 1950, after the economy got >restarted? And Japan? Germany and Japan, of course, wanted US troops there. When a country didn't, i.e. the Philippines, the US left. > The US had a colony in Panama for decades, and the Philippines and >Hawaii and still has Puerto Rico. No, they had a military base in Panama. That's not a colony. Neither is Puerto Rico; it's an associated commonwealth. > There'll be US troops in Iraq until the oil runs out. He says, not even knowing what the definition of a colony is. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-23 21:58:13+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > wrote: > >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > > My god. Get a clue. They're on sale now. I got mine on discount... how about you? http://slate.msn.com/id/2070410/ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1077 The majority of hijackers were from American ally Saudi Arabia, but Bush won't bomb that bitch because they're friendly dictators who oppress their people, but hey, they jump to the US's tune so let's just ignore that. Oil wells that ends well. Bush's attempts to associate Saddam with September 11 seems to be working on sections of the public that are as stupid as he is. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html And the US was happy to train Afghan fighters such as Osama Bin Laden, so let's bomb the CIA for training funding terrorists http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm Caroline

2003-04-23 22:18:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mark Evans wrote: > Or some documents to discredit a Labour MP he dosn't like. > > Some which just happen to be intact in a burned out building, must be > made of the same paper hijacker's passports use... > > That's lucky. But then some people make their own luck. Hehe, I can't say I agree with much that Galloway says but this does sound like a stitch-up. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-23 22:34:24+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:dpvdavc9ba2l7gcvdqeul2t32uhug0qmaj@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:58:13 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > wrote: > > > > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> > >> wrote: > >> >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >> Penny dropping. Clue recieved. My bad. Saddam and 9/11 http://slate.msn.com/id/2070410/ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1077 http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm All links now more relevant. Caroline Happily acknowleges when she's wrong.

2003-04-23 22:50:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Growltiger wrote in message ... >Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, aethelrede@worldnet.att.net wrote >in article <O3mpa.40587$cO3.3082545@bgtnsc04- >news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> >> Growltiger wrote in message ... >> >Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, jim.laker2@yahoo.com wrote in >> >article <b82u3b$5k5no$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>... >> >[elided] >> >> >> >> 90% of their WMDs were known to be destroyed between GWI and GWII. GWI >> >> destroyed around 10%, and GWI none. That makes it around 80% due to >> > >> >Are you sure about this? Chemical weapons were used extensively in Gulf >> >War I. It was horrible. And the thousands of survivors who somehow >> >cling to life in veteran's hospitals and care centers envy the dead. In >> >contrast, chemical weapons use is suspect during Gulf War II; however, >> >they had infamous use against a civilian population after that conflict. >> >> Am I finally descending into senility, or are you alleging that Iraq >> USED chemical weapons against US troops during the "Desert Storm" operation? > >Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the first Persian >Gulf War. That war reads like a replay of World War I: millions of >lives lost in trench warfare with the added horror of chemical warfare. >The survivors of the chemical warfare have been documented by all the >news outlets in their recent coverage of this last conflict, which would >the recent Iraqi-American-Anglo war. The second Gulf War would be >Desert Storm. When you make up names that differ from those in common use, you really should make it clearer.

2003-04-23 23:14:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Paul Smith wrote in message ... >blucas1@mindspring.com (Enkil) wrote in >news:58e03e6b.0304230418.1769741f@posting.google.com: > >> Strange how your responses tend to take the form of personal insults >> without a single response to the content of the original post. >> There are dozens of different media outlets in Britain as well, >> including the anti-US ones you prefer. CNN has never actually been >> pro-US, and has even apologized on air for one of their anchors >> calling the US troops "Our Troops". They studiously insist on being >> what they call sceptical, but which is actually actively negative with >> regard to US policy. > >I've just returned from spending almost a month in the US, and I find it >laughable that you can for one minute consider CNN as being anything other >than pro-US. Granted, it's not as rabidly moronic as FOX or MSNBC, but >it's not that far off. The so-called journalists working for your main TV >news stations should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. There's no calm, >impartial analysis of the situation - watching CNN/MSNBC/FOX is like >watching a combination of MTV and a Jerry Bruckheimer movie trailer. > >Having said that, you have some fine journalists working for a few of your >major newspapers, so all is not lost :) Most people in the US who read newspapers read the sports reports, far more important than the news to most of them. And with few exceptions people in TV news are chosen for looks and the ability to read a script from a tele-prompter. But to call CNN impartial is ludicrous. Slightly less rabidly biased than others is the best I could say. But even when they describe coverage by Arab TV there's an definite air of "This is the propaganda the Arabs are showing, unlike the honest truth you see from us...". As for my local "news" paper, the editorials about Iraq beat some of the posts in this thread, but most are about really important things like sports and expanding a local shopping mall.

2003-04-23 23:21:28-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:03:28 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >Israel not being there would be bad, because? Sure it would be bad >for some Israelis (except those who have claimed Polish citizenship >and those who have joint US/Israeli citizenship who can easily leave >anytime they want.) it would be very bad for those connected with the >IDF and Mossad. But how would it be bad for the world. > I think this paragraph says it all. Stimpson

2003-04-23 23:24:41+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Caffeine Cal wrote in message ... > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:2nedavg0t1gj1teakebsp4ldr1vrfoc9va@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:36 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >news:ukcdavgqnf9m9t2sga1d2nmrnev861hqtn@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:21:53 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >After debating these issues for over a month, I have come to the >> >> >conclusion that many pro-war supporters have no clue that issues >> >other >> >> >than Iraq exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Most people quit bothering to debate anything with you because you >> >devolve >> >> in to personal attacks at the same time you accuse others of them. >> >The war >> >> is pretty much over in Iraq. Your side lost. Get over it. >> > >> >My side is Humanity, and I am painfully aware that Humanity has lost. >> >No, I don't plan on getitng over it. >> >> Humanity? That's a good one. Take heart. The Shites may rise in Iraq >and >> create another fundamentalist "death to America" state. Then you can be >> happy again. > >They are a majority group. Y'see in a democracy if a majority group wins >in elections that pretty much makes them the people in charge. > >Or is that not the type of democracy the US is interested in making sure the >Iraqi people get? Is there one form of democracy for America and another >form for its colonies? A "democratic" foreign government seems to be one which supports the US unconditionally, no matter what the voters may wish. Anything else is a dictatorship or a tyrannical regime. Pakistan is currently a democracy, so is China, but France, Germany and Russia are definitely putting their status in jeopardy. What the Iraqis seem to want is a Kurdish state (preferably united with Turkish Kurds), a Shiite state, and another state for the rest. But that's what Bush has already stated they won't get as long as the US occupation continues: they'll get a western style government of intellectuals who've been living in the US and UK for the last 20-30 years, and will remain one country within the current borders, selling oil to the US and definitely not allowing any more power to religious leaders than Saddam did.

2003-04-23 23:28:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


parismom wrote in message <3EA6E269.5BE282B4@verizon.net>... > > >Caffeine Cal wrote: > Is there one form of democracy for America and another >> form for its colonies? >> >> Caroline > >you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand >that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last >thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the >world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the >sooner we can leave. The way the US troops left Germany in 1950, after the economy got restarted? And Japan? The US had a colony in Panama for decades, and the Philippines and Hawaii and still has Puerto Rico. There'll be US troops in Iraq until the oil runs out.

2003-04-24 00:09:47+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:4k4eavcrdaqhfftk6rq1l054lmgjcb1jcf@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:34:24 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > wrote: > > > > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >news:dpvdavc9ba2l7gcvdqeul2t32uhug0qmaj@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:58:13 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >> >news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... > >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > >> ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >> >> > > > >Penny dropping. Clue recieved. My bad. Saddam and 9/11 > > Since I never argued there was proof of Iraq involvement in 9/11, I really > couldn't figure out whether you'd made a mistake or not. Some people really > do believe Israel was responsible for it for instance. I'm not one of those. I'm all for researching and finding out what's happening from various sources (Irish, British and US - mainstream and minority) just to get a rounded picture, but the Israel theory was just too fanciful. Caroline Likes her mad theories to have a hint of mainstream acceptability!

2003-04-24 00:24:28-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:27:02 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >Unlike you, I am well aware that there is no homogenous "Jews". >But go on believing that there exist some group of people who >are all pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. You insult Jewish people >with sterotypes, ignoring their diversity even their humanity, >then claim than anyone who challenges your narrow minded view >is anti-Jew. > Blah blah blah... NONE of this is relevant to the discussion in any way. Period. I think your point is that Israel was reformed recently (1948) by an influx from people from various countries after WW2. So what. They have been there long enough that they are not leaving. >Actually what I said is that there is at least as much evidence >pointing to Israel as there is pointing to Al Queda. >Specifically the sickos who were caught dancing as the WTC burned, No, those were Palestinians. Your sources claim they were Israelis. I want you to tell me WHY this was not mentioned in the mainstream press (trolling...). >the warnings sent to Odigo and Zim shipping breaking it's lease to move out of >the building. > Oh... So now they DEFINITELY recieved a warning, and broke their lease. Last time I spoke to you, they had only moved. Apparently the disgusting rags you read have updated this story. It has not been mentioned anywhere else. I want you to tell me WHY it has not been mentioned anywhere mainstream. Yes, this is another troll. >I said this in which posts, go on produce your citations. THE FUN BEGINS............................................... Here are some things you have posted. these are all CUT AND PASTED from posts you made. The context is intact in each instance. MARK EVANS SAID THE FOLLOWING, while commenting about how foreigners are persecuted in the United States: cut and pasted: ===================================================== But apparently nothing like that happened to the woman at a New York airport carrying a white poweder. She had her Patrician^WIsraeli passport to hand. ===================================================== end paste Once again, you have magical sources. Of course, the claim is that police in the USA look the other way when Israelis are out to commit terrorist acts. The fact that this story is pure and simple horse crap is beside the point. It shows your state of mind regarding conspiracies of Israeli terrorism in the USA. The conspiracies not only involve Israelis, but extend all the way down to the average policemen on the street. continuing..... MARK EVANS CITED THE FOLLOWING evidence implicating Israelis in 9/11. cut and pasted ====================================================== On top of this some of the so called evidence is obviously planted. Someone appears to have go to a great deal of trouble to make it appear that Arab Muslims were involved. There is a nation state which has in the past been caught enguaging in terrorism and planting evidence to make it appear that Arab Muslims are responsible. There is also a nation state which planned to fake terrorist incidents in order to justify a war. ====================================================== end paste You said above that you did not implicate Israel in 9/11. If this is not implying that Israel is the guilty party, what is? continuing.... cut and pasted ====================================================== When it comes to 9/11 there simply is no hard evidence. When it comes to the circumstantial evidence there is some pointing to Al Queda (not that much once the obviously bogus material is discounted); some pointing to the US government (or evidence that the FAA and NORAD are completly incompetent) and rather a lot pointing in the direction of Israel. Including the Israelis cheering as the WTC burned; the Zim Shipping company moving out of the WTC; over a thousand Israeli citizens just happening to be late for work that morning and the Israeli commando, a passenger on one of the planes, supposedly *shot* by hijackers armed only with knives. ===================================================== end paste This is the really nutty stuff.... Lets recap, shall we? Over 1000 Israeli citzens being late for work in the WTC on 9/11. The Zim Shipping company moving. Israelis cheering as the WTC burned. The Israeli commando who was shot by hijackers armed with knives. NONE of this has been reported by any mainstream newssource, many of whom are pretty hard against Israel. NONE OF IT. Again, I ask you to tell me why that is (trolling...). The rest speaks for itself. Do 1000 Israeli citzens even work at the WTC? I SERIOUSLY doubt it. Even if they did, tell me, WHO SENT THE MEMO ABOUT THE ATTACK????? Once again, it is scary how you think the conspiracy extends all the way down to EVERY Israeli at the WTC. In your mind, it is not even limited to the bigwigs. ALL Israelis at the WTC are in on the attack. You think they got a phone call the night before or something. This is sick. The Israeli commando?!?! What the fuck?!?! Anyway, after reading YOUR OWN WORDS, TELL ME you are not implicating Israel. Google sucks for you, dude. You should start blocking your posts from being archived. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-24 10:51:33-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:39:07 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >>>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" >> blame game. > >> Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with >> us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't >> make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful >> attacks. > >Ad-hominum attacks (attack the poster) and strawmen (misrepresent what >the poster said and attack that) appear to be the "bread and butter" >of those who's arguments simply cannot be defended rationally. Whether you or Caffeine Cal think i'm making reasoned or rational comments is too ironic given your support for her mistake she admitted to making below. >>> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >>> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > >> And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >Just some circumstantial evidence suggesting them. With other equally >circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions. I wonder if she'll notice the irony of you supporting that mistake she made when she meant Iraq and Saddam Hussein but typed Al Qaida instead. The looney fringe (Yup, yet another personal attack) actually believes that stuff. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-24 11:18:47+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message > news:pi1pa.561860$L1.163435@sccrnsc02... >> ~snipped to make shorter~ >> >> > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" >> > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we > have >> > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any >> > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. >> > >> > >> First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just > to >> liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush > administration is >> pushing that reason so strongly. > I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor > euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a > US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second > because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- With the usual double standards the US government (and it's supporters) whine when the sovereignty of a country they happen to like is not respected (even recognised) by other countries or groups. > even those we dislike-- we send a message that diplomacy is dead, and > that > no country can turst another. >> We do however have the right to wage war on >> a country with or without the support of the UN when our national > security >> is at stake. > I disagree, and the US is bound by the UN Charter because the US is a > member of the UN. The US was not under any threat justifying a claim > of self-defence, or even a threat to its "national security". There "National security" is overused to the point of meaning whatever some head of state wants to say it means. Including protecting some government official from being seen as a fool and as a distraction when the real "enemy of the nation" is the government itself. > was no justification for this war based on defence. >> The COALITION FORCES have found terrorist training camps in Iraq >> and we have already been attacked numerous times by terrorists so I > say that >> constitutes a national security issue. > I take those claims with a grain of salt... and think that if the US More like about half a kilo of salt. > really wanted to fight terrorism other targets would have taken > priority over Iraq. If the US really wanted to fight terrorism the first targets would be terrorists the US has been supporting. Simply because they are the easiest ones for the US to find. >> As for not publicly releasing the >> locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it > was >> because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the > inspectors >> arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to. > Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US > did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure > setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could > have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed If the Iraqi government had the ability to magically move such weapons it's rather incredible that they wern't moved somewhere to be of actual use against the invading army. > then some weapons could have been found. Blix is now suggesting much > of the US evidence was faked or spurious, which I find very likely and Other inspectors have said that what "evidence" they were given from US and UK intelligence sources effectivly sent them chasing wild geese. > is supported by other reports over the last few months. I quote: > Blix said weapons inspectors had "no great difficulty" proving > documents that passed U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. > "Who falsifies this?" asked Blix. > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/22/blix_030422 >> We also had an Iraqi in >> the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that > Saddam >> had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the > locations of a >> few of these buried weapons caches. > Again I will believe this when it is verified by outside > investigators. That being said I have agreed all along that Saddam > may have had a few banned weapons, but I do not believe he had any > significant amounts of banned weapons in a ready-to-use form. All the inspectors managed to find were the remains of programs and a few (empty) munitions in storage. Even the people the US now has in the country havn't found anything. Though they have generated a few false alarms over insecticide. >>We couldn't tighten the oil for food >> program anymore because too many Iraqis were already starving and > tightening >> the program further would have resulted in more starvation. > Wrong. Among other ideas, the program could have been removed from > Iraqi control (they distributed goods) and placed under direct control > of a UN official. Or a number of officals. This could also have the effect of ensuring that so called "duel use" materials were being put to civil, rather than military use. >> We just found >> $680 million in US cash in a hidden stash.Why wasn't he using that > to feed >> his people.The French and the Germans had a large financial stake in > seeing >> Saddam stay in power to keep their billions in oil for military > equipment >> contracts valid. > A drop in the bucket; see note above. Any ideas on how the Iraqi government could have got its hands on "mint condition" US currency?

2003-04-24 11:29:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net>)


EGK wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:39:07 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > >In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > > > >> "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > > > >>>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" > >> blame game. > > > >> Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with > >> us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't > >> make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful > >> attacks. > > > >Ad-hominum attacks (attack the poster) and strawmen (misrepresent what > >the poster said and attack that) appear to be the "bread and butter" > >of those who's arguments simply cannot be defended rationally. > > Whether you or Caffeine Cal think i'm making reasoned or rational comments > is too ironic given your support for her mistake she admitted to making > below. > > >>> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation > >>> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > > > >> And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > > > >Just some circumstantial evidence suggesting them. With other equally > >circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions. > > I wonder if she'll notice the irony of you supporting that mistake she made > when she meant Iraq and Saddam Hussein but typed Al Qaida instead. The > looney fringe (Yup, yet another personal attack) actually believes that > stuff. > i don't agree with caffeine cal, perhaps, and this thread has gotten a little difficult to follow, but i wouldn't use the word "loony". she has a right to her opinion, and wasn't personally insulting about it. there's a difference between insulting a country (which i feel she did) and insulting a person in the thread. jmo.

2003-04-24 11:39:07+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" > blame game. > Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with > us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't > make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful > attacks. Ad-hominum attacks (attack the poster) and strawmen (misrepresent what the poster said and attack that) appear to be the "bread and butter" of those who's arguments simply cannot be defended rationally. >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. Just some circumstantial evidence suggesting them. With other equally circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions. There are also many things about what happened that morning which should have been investigated, but simply wern't. There are also odd things about the whole Al Qaida entity itself. One supposed Al Qaida cell was exposed as being a front for an intelligence service. Terrorism is usually accomponied by a claim of responsibility immediatly before or after. 9/11 is one of a set of terrorist attacks where such claims have simply not been made. But "Al Qaida" is identified as the culprit, in the case of 9/11 before *any* detective work could have been done. To put it bluntly the whole thing simply dosn't smell right. > There's a kettle on line one that wants to discuss colours with you.

2003-04-24 11:43:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <7md88b.d7n.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk says... > In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message > > news:pi1pa.561860$L1.163435@sccrnsc02... > >> ~snipped to make shorter~ > >> > >> > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" > >> > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we > > have > >> > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any > >> > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. > >> > > >> > > >> First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just > > to > >> liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush > > administration is > >> pushing that reason so strongly. > > > I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor > > euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a > > US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second > > because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- > > With the usual double standards the US government (and it's supporters) > whine when the sovereignty of a country they happen to like is not > respected (even recognised) by other countries or groups. Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates UN resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't finding anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, but not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more 'made up crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding anywhere near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an invasion and overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real intelligence, it's still a double standard.) > > really wanted to fight terrorism other targets would have taken > > priority over Iraq. > > If the US really wanted to fight terrorism the first targets would > be terrorists the US has been supporting. Simply because they are the > easiest ones for the US to find. No kidding. > >> As for not publicly releasing the > >> locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it > > was > >> because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the > > inspectors > >> arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to. > > > Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US > > did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure > > setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could > > have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed > > If the Iraqi government had the ability to magically move such weapons > it's rather incredible that they wern't moved somewhere to be of actual > use against the invading army. Let's pretend they do have massive amounts of weapons, and decided not to use them: I mean, honestly, people, think about it for a second. If Saddam being overthrown from power and the Baath government crumbling didn't make them use said weapons, under what circumstances *would* they use them? If they won't use them under *any* circumstances, then why the hell do we care that they possess them? > > then some weapons could have been found. Blix is now suggesting much > > of the US evidence was faked or spurious, which I find very likely and > > Other inspectors have said that what "evidence" they were given from > US and UK intelligence sources effectivly sent them chasing wild geese. It's looking more and more like the US just made a bunch of crap up. > > is supported by other reports over the last few months. I quote: > > > Blix said weapons inspectors had "no great difficulty" proving > > documents that passed U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. > > "Who falsifies this?" asked Blix. > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/22/blix_030422 > > > >> We also had an Iraqi in > >> the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that > > Saddam > >> had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the > > locations of a > >> few of these buried weapons caches. > > > Again I will believe this when it is verified by outside > > investigators. That being said I have agreed all along that Saddam > > may have had a few banned weapons, but I do not believe he had any > > significant amounts of banned weapons in a ready-to-use form. > > All the inspectors managed to find were the remains of programs and > a few (empty) munitions in storage. Even the people the US now has > in the country havn't found anything. Though they have generated a > few false alarms over insecticide. Yeah, we're having people point at broken missiles and (known) old buildings where research was done 15 years ago and weren't reused later on, so still have partially disassembled equipment in them. (If there's anything Iraq isn't running short on, it's buildings.) About the only thing that Iraq *might* have been in violation with was modifying some missiles to shoot farther than they are allowed, and even that hasn't been proven yet.

2003-04-24 11:44:20+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:3vpdavoke460jvre15k265rp1rllhfs2v1@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:00:06 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > <coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> wrote: >> >And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >> My god. Get a clue. They're on sale now. > I got mine on discount... how about you? > http://slate.msn.com/id/2070410/ > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story > http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1077 > The majority of hijackers were from American ally Saudi Arabia, but Bush > won't bomb that bitch because they're friendly dictators who oppress their 5 of those on the FBI's list were quickly proven to be using stolen identities. Which makes the identities of the other 14 on the list rather suspect. > people, but hey, they jump to the US's tune so let's just ignore that. Oil At least until Syria and Iran have been "dealt with"... > wells that ends well.

2003-04-24 11:50:21-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:29:07 -0400, parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net> wrote: > > >EGK wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:39:07 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> > >> >> "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" >> >> blame game. >> > >> >> Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with >> >> us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't >> >> make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful >> >> attacks. >> > >> >Ad-hominum attacks (attack the poster) and strawmen (misrepresent what >> >the poster said and attack that) appear to be the "bread and butter" >> >of those who's arguments simply cannot be defended rationally. >> >> Whether you or Caffeine Cal think i'm making reasoned or rational comments >> is too ironic given your support for her mistake she admitted to making >> below. >> >> >>> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >> >>> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >> > >> >> And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> > >> >Just some circumstantial evidence suggesting them. With other equally >> >circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions. >> >> I wonder if she'll notice the irony of you supporting that mistake she made >> when she meant Iraq and Saddam Hussein but typed Al Qaida instead. The >> looney fringe (Yup, yet another personal attack) actually believes that >> stuff. >> > >i don't agree with caffeine cal, perhaps, and this thread has gotten a >little difficult to follow, but i wouldn't use the word "loony". she has >a right to her opinion, and wasn't personally insulting about it. >there's a difference between insulting a country (which i feel she did) >and insulting a person in the thread. No, no. Caffeine Cal simply made a mistake that she later corrected. It was Mark's opinion I found looney. It was just ironic that she and he seemed to think I had offered no reasoned or rational arguements to support my opinions. At the same time, he supported her original mistake in saying there was no evidence that Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11. She meant to say Iraq though I never said there was direct evidence of Iraqi involvement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-24 11:56:36+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > But that's what Bush has already stated they won't get as long as the US > occupation continues: they'll get a western style government of > intellectuals who've been living in the US and UK for the last 20-30 years, At least that long, one of those the US recently produced hasn't set foot in Iraq for 45 years.

2003-04-24 11:59:39-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net>)


EGK wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:29:07 -0400, parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >EGK wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:39:07 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >> > > >> >>>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" > >> >> blame game. > >> > > >> >> Yes you did. More disgusting personal attacks along the "If y'ain't with > >> >> us, yer aginst us" John Wayne shite (note correct use of word.). You can't > >> >> make a reasoned, rational argument so you resort to these disgraceful > >> >> attacks. > >> > > >> >Ad-hominum attacks (attack the poster) and strawmen (misrepresent what > >> >the poster said and attack that) appear to be the "bread and butter" > >> >of those who's arguments simply cannot be defended rationally. > >> > >> Whether you or Caffeine Cal think i'm making reasoned or rational comments > >> is too ironic given your support for her mistake she admitted to making > >> below. > >> > >> >>> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation > >> >>> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > >> > > >> >> And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >> > > >> >Just some circumstantial evidence suggesting them. With other equally > >> >circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions. > >> > >> I wonder if she'll notice the irony of you supporting that mistake she made > >> when she meant Iraq and Saddam Hussein but typed Al Qaida instead. The > >> looney fringe (Yup, yet another personal attack) actually believes that > >> stuff. > >> > > > >i don't agree with caffeine cal, perhaps, and this thread has gotten a > >little difficult to follow, but i wouldn't use the word "loony". she has > >a right to her opinion, and wasn't personally insulting about it. > >there's a difference between insulting a country (which i feel she did) > >and insulting a person in the thread. > > No, no. Caffeine Cal simply made a mistake that she later corrected. It was > Mark's opinion I found looney. It was just ironic that she and he seemed to > think I had offered no reasoned or rational arguements to support my > opinions. At the same time, he supported her original mistake in saying > there was no evidence that Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11. She meant to > say Iraq though I never said there was direct evidence of Iraqi involvement. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com okay-i got it. -- parismom File-Manager for Senior Moments For the rest of my busy existence, please visit: http://www.hopewellframe.com Things I learned from my Dad: 1. As people get older, they don't change; they become *more so.* 2. If something's wrong, and it can be fixed with money, it's not *that* bad. 3. You can't go wrong doing the right thing.

2003-04-24 13:58:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (parismom <parismom.woof@verizon.net>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > > "parismom" <parismom.woof@verizon.net> wrote in message > > <snipped nice things defending me!> > > Hi parismom! Nice to see we can disagree on one point, but agree strongly > on another! (in another ng too!) :D <waves!> > > Caroline > Off to see what the stink is like in atxf! well, you-know-who showed up for a day or so. she left just as quickly...lol -- parismom File-Manager for Senior Moments For the rest of my busy existence, please visit: http://www.hopewellframe.com Things I learned from my Dad: 1. As people get older, they don't change; they become *more so.* 2. If something's wrong, and it can be fixed with money, it's not *that* bad. 3. You can't go wrong doing the right thing.

2003-04-24 16:51:32-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:7md88b.d7n.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor > > euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a > > US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second > > because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- > > With the usual double standards the US government (and it's supporters) > whine when the sovereignty of a country they happen to like is not > respected (even recognised) by other countries or groups. Of course. > > I disagree, and the US is bound by the UN Charter because the US is a > > member of the UN. The US was not under any threat justifying a claim > > of self-defence, or even a threat to its "national security". There > > "National security" is overused to the point of meaning whatever some > head of state wants to say it means. Including protecting some government > official from being seen as a fool and as a distraction when the real > "enemy of the nation" is the government itself. Agreed. > > Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US > > did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure > > setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could > > have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed > > If the Iraqi government had the ability to magically move such weapons > it's rather incredible that they wern't moved somewhere to be of actual > use against the invading army. No, no, you don't understand how it works. You see, they can move anything to hide it, but they can't actually use the weapons. Of course the weapons are a threat, but a well hidden threat, even though they haven't be used. Or something like that.... > > Wrong. Among other ideas, the program could have been removed from > > Iraqi control (they distributed goods) and placed under direct control > > of a UN official. > > Or a number of officals. This could also have the effect of ensuring that > so called "duel use" materials were being put to civil, rather than military > use. Exactly. If is so easy for us to think of option, you have to wonder how the great moron... I mean President Bush could claim with a straight face that war was the only option. > Any ideas on how the Iraqi government could have got its hands on > "mint condition" US currency? Yes, but it would probably be un-American of me to comment on it, and US special forces would invade Canada to arrest me for terrorism. Probably declare this a red alert, LOL.

2003-04-24 16:58:15-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates UN > resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would never lie. Have a listen to the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, attempting to defend his government's actions. His arguments include a great many "must be" statements, appeals to common sense, and circumstantial arguments (I won't call it evidence) but very little of substance. In fact he barely said anything at all during the Q&A period! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2964331.stm > Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't finding > anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, but > not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more 'made up > crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding anywhere > near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an invasion and > overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real > intelligence, it's still a double standard.) At this point I no longer believe any substantial evidence ever existed. > About the only thing that Iraq *might* have been in violation with was > modifying some missiles to shoot farther than they are allowed, and even > that hasn't been proven yet. And military experts have warned that testing methodology can yield very different ranges for missiles.

2003-04-24 17:07:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:56:56 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> "Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >>> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>> >>> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> >>> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to >> America" >>> > blame game. >>> >>> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >>> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >>> >>> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >> I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant >> Saddam and 9/11. > >It dosn't really matter, considering there is no substantive connection >between *any* entity and 9/11. The best there is is circumstantial evidence, >some of which points at Al Qaida, some of which points elsewhere. None of >it appears to point to Iraq. > >There are various theories, the more honest ones admit to being *theories*. >The less honest, including those most pushed by the Western media, pretend to >be "fact". You mean except for the videos where Osama bin Laden takes credit for it? Or are they doctored by nefarious Israeli Mossad agents, Mark? By the way, did the Holocaust happen? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-24 18:39:44+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > > > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > > >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to America" > > blame game. > > >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation > >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > > > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant Saddam and 9/11. Caroline Clearing up her errors

2003-04-24 18:42:40+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"parismom" <parismom.woof@verizon.net> wrote in message <snipped nice things defending me!> Hi parismom! Nice to see we can disagree on one point, but agree strongly on another! (in another ng too!) :D <waves!> Caroline Off to see what the stink is like in atxf!

2003-04-24 20:45:26-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:12:47 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote: > >>>>Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >>> >>the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > > >> Well, all I have to say is Bush said he wants to fight all terrorism, not > >He might claim that but he has shown zero evidence of actually doing this. >The Bush administration only appears interested in people who are >Arab and/or Moslem. Whilst they show little restraint in tossing such >people in jail on the weakest of pretexts. You don't see the US authorities >chasing down people with financial links to the IRA and tossing them in >prison. You don't see attempts to ensure that the US government itself >is free from terrorist links. You see some people being set free, rather >than tossed in jail, whilst doing highly suspicious things just because >they have citizenship of a certain foreign country. LOL!!!!! Here we are again. Why do you always say "A certain foriegn country". Just name it and be done. You are SUCH a hateful and prejudiced person. The funny thing is that in your mind you probably think you are a humanitarian or something. I want to ask you a question. Be honest now... Did the holocaust really occur, or was it a hoax? Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-24 21:56:56+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to > America" >> > blame game. >> >> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >> >> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant > Saddam and 9/11. It dosn't really matter, considering there is no substantive connection between *any* entity and 9/11. The best there is is circumstantial evidence, some of which points at Al Qaida, some of which points elsewhere. None of it appears to point to Iraq. There are various theories, the more honest ones admit to being *theories*. The less honest, including those most pushed by the Western media, pretend to be "fact".

2003-04-24 22:23:13+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (3D Master <3d.master@chello.nl>)


EGK wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:56:56 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > >>In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >> >>>"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>>news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >>> >>>>In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to >>> >>>America" >>> >>>>>blame game. >>>> >>>>>>One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >>>>>>building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >>>> >>>>>And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >>>I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant >>>Saddam and 9/11. >> >>It dosn't really matter, considering there is no substantive connection >>between *any* entity and 9/11. The best there is is circumstantial evidence, >>some of which points at Al Qaida, some of which points elsewhere. None of >>it appears to point to Iraq. >> >>There are various theories, the more honest ones admit to being *theories*. >>The less honest, including those most pushed by the Western media, pretend to >>be "fact". > > > You mean except for the videos where Osama bin Laden takes credit for it? > Or are they doctored by nefarious Israeli Mossad agents, Mark? By the way, > did the Holocaust happen? Yes the holocause happen. So did the WTC destruction, of course bin Laden is just a CIA puppet. The American government themselves blew up the WTC, and fired a missile into the pentagon. The tapes were made with a CIA imposter. In case you haven't noticed the guy is wearing American military fatigues with the american flag on it. To Al Qeada America is supposed to be the devil incarnate, they are probably considered to be worse the nazis were in WWII. Bin Laden wearing an American military uniform would be similar to Churchill wearing a Nazi unifrom with swastikas and all as he addressed the british nation. He would never wear it. 3D Master -- ~~~~~ "I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!" - The Kurgan, Highlander "Give me some sugar, baby!" - Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness ~~~~~ Author of several stories, which can be found here: http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/

2003-04-24 23:32:08-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Now that we have won the war, our next task is to win the peace, which would mean building a world in which no one WANTS to commit acts of terrorism against us! To help build a world beyond terrorism, I believe that the U.S. should: Set up a Global Peace Fund, which would rebuild war ravaged nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and spearhead the fight to abolish hunger and poverty around the world. To fund it, the U.S. should donate 10% of its military budget ($39.6 billion), and invite all other nations to do the same. Set up a Peace Department, which would advise the President on how to promote peace, and run a Peace Academy, which would train Peace Academy Cadets (from all over the world) in peacekeeping and non-violent conflict resolution. It would also create peace curriculums to offer to schools all over the world, to teach kids worldwide about non-violent conflict resolution, cultural diversity, and tolerance. Set up student exchange programs between the U.S. and other nations, so as to expose U.S. students to foreign cultures, and expose foreign students to U.S. culture and ideals. While the foreign students are in U.S. schools, they would be required to take classes in U.S. history and government. (I understand that foreigners in U.S. universities aren't required to take classes in U.S. history and government, so can escape being exposed to the "Democracy virus". I have therefore specified a requirement that foreign students take such classes).

2003-04-25 00:41:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <7md88b.d7n.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk says... >> In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >> > news:pi1pa.561860$L1.163435@sccrnsc02... >> >> ~snipped to make shorter~ >> >> >> >> > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" >> >> > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we >> > have >> >> > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any >> >> > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just >> > to >> >> liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush >> > administration is >> >> pushing that reason so strongly. >> >> > I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor >> > euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a >> > US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second >> > because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- >> >> With the usual double standards the US government (and it's supporters) >> whine when the sovereignty of a country they happen to like is not >> respected (even recognised) by other countries or groups. > >Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates UN >resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? Apperently Bush and his cronies believe that the USA is now the world's policeman and only arbiter of morality, so the UN charter just doesn't apply to, the way Bush has decided so many other international accords and treaties don't apply. >Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't finding >anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, but >not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more 'made up >crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding anywhere >near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an invasion >and overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real >intelligence, it's still a double standard.) So far nothing has been found except possibly some attempts by religious terrorists in Kurdish controlled territory to create WMDs. A factory that may have made some gas in the past is not a weapon: until an actual weapon capable of actually being used in the field is found, I'm assuming that Bush's claims they exist are just an excuse for an invasion. And I'm sure that there are dictators in the world who have done things as bad as Saddam that the US considers valid allies, so I'm not buying the "liberating the Iraqi people" thing either. >> If the US really wanted to fight terrorism the first targets would >> be terrorists the US has been supporting. Simply because they are the >> easiest ones for the US to find. > >No kidding. > >> >> As for not publicly releasing the >> >> locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it >> > was >> >> because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the >> > inspectors >> >> arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to. >> >> > Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US >> > did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure >> > setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could >> > have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed >> >> If the Iraqi government had the ability to magically move such weapons >> it's rather incredible that they wern't moved somewhere to be of actual >> use against the invading army. > >Let's pretend they do have massive amounts of weapons, and decided >not to use them: >I mean, honestly, people, think about it for a second. If Saddam being >overthrown from power and the Baath government crumbling didn't make >them use said weapons, under what circumstances *would* they use >them? >If they won't use them under *any* circumstances, then why the hell do >we care that they possess them? You'd think that at least one of the hard core groups that have been doing Saddam's dirty work for years would have been equipped with WMDs and would have used them as a last resort. I still think that Saddam saw this war coming a year or more ago (I certainly did) and ordered the destruction of whatever WMDs he may have had, long before inviting the UN inspectors back. That way he figured that even if he lost, he'd make the US look like a lying bully to the world and posterity. >> > then some weapons could have been found. Blix is now suggesting much >> > of the US evidence was faked or spurious, which I find very likely and >> >> Other inspectors have said that what "evidence" they were given from >> US and UK intelligence sources effectivly sent them chasing wild geese. > >It's looking more and more like the US just made a bunch of crap up. > >> > is supported by other reports over the last few months. I quote: >> >> > Blix said weapons inspectors had "no great difficulty" proving >> > documents that passed U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. >> > "Who falsifies this?" asked Blix. >> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/22/blix_030422 >> >> >> >> We also had an Iraqi in >> >> the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that >> > Saddam >> >> had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the >> > locations of a >> >> few of these buried weapons caches. >> >> > Again I will believe this when it is verified by outside >> > investigators. That being said I have agreed all along that Saddam >> > may have had a few banned weapons, but I do not believe he had any >> > significant amounts of banned weapons in a ready-to-use form. >> >> All the inspectors managed to find were the remains of programs and >> a few (empty) munitions in storage. Even the people the US now has >> in the country havn't found anything. Though they have generated a >> few false alarms over insecticide. > >Yeah, we're having people point at broken missiles and (known) old >buildings where research was done 15 years ago and weren't reused later >on, so still have partially disassembled equipment in them. (If there's >anything Iraq isn't running short on, it's buildings.) The only thing the person who turned himself in buried was a bunch of junk that might have once been used to make chemicals. A far cry from having chemicals, and even futher from having usable chemical weapons. But it seems that we aren't going to get any independant UN verification of anything the US finds: it's going to be a totally US operation; most likely without reporters, and doubtless to avoid compromising intelligence sources the sites will be secret and the details will be classified. >About the only thing that Iraq *might* have been in violation with was >modifying some missiles to shoot farther than they are allowed, and even >that hasn't been proven yet. That one seems to be true. Hardly relevant, but it seems people were getting desperate for anything.

2003-04-25 01:33:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <b89jht$7pcc4$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... > > "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... > > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates > UN > > resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? > > Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 > and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. > They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will > take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would > never lie. Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. > Have a listen to the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, attempting to > defend his government's actions. His arguments include a great many > "must be" statements, appeals to common sense, and circumstantial > arguments (I won't call it evidence) but very little of substance. In > fact he barely said anything at all during the Q&A period! > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2964331.stm > > > Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't > finding > > anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, > but > > not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more > 'made up > > crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding > anywhere > > near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an > invasion and > > overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real > > intelligence, it's still a double standard.) > > At this point I no longer believe any substantial evidence ever > existed. The government has chosen to go with literally random reports and whatnot over, you know, the frickin CIA. > > About the only thing that Iraq *might* have been in violation with > was > > modifying some missiles to shoot farther than they are allowed, and > even > > that hasn't been proven yet. > > And military experts have warned that testing methodology can yield > very different ranges for missiles. Right. Anyway, that was the entire point of inspections, to find things in violation of the rules. It's not like they were secret missiles or anything. Iraq claimed one range, some other people claimed another. That's why, duh, we had inspectors. They could figure it out and order the missiles destroyed if they wanted. Inspectors finding a slight disagreement is not a violation of the UN Resolutions, that's the half the *point* of the inspections. The inspectors just say 'Yes, that's understandable, but we're not allowing it, destroy these things now, please.'. It's not a frickin police search of a house looking for anything that could be considered illegal, it's an *inspection* to find failures to abide by the UN resolution, deliberate or accidental, and fix them. If Iraq constantly had 'accidental' failures, yeah, call in the cops. But even *we* can't agree if said missiles were in violation. Being in accidental violation of the UN resolution is like being in accidental violation of health codes...the inspectors will alert you to it, and get you to fix it. They don't close down your restaurant for a single accidental problem.

2003-04-25 05:06:27+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:12:47 +0100, Mark Evans > <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >> You see some people being set free, >> rather than tossed in jail, whilst doing highly suspicious things >> just because they have citizenship of a certain foreign country. > > LOL!!!!! > > Here we are again. > > Why do you always say "A certain foriegn country". Just name it and be > done. Saudi Arabia? Specifically, the Bin Laden family, which has strong financial links with the Bush family. Given free rein to leave the US even while one of their members was high on the Most-Wanted list. And last year, IIRC, Saudi Arabia chose to ignore US requests for suspects to be handed over, their executions also conveniently eliminating evidence. > You are SUCH a hateful and prejudiced person. The funny thing is that > in your mind you probably think you are a humanitarian or something. > > I want to ask you a question. > > Be honest now... > > Did the holocaust really occur, or was it a hoax? Does the US support a country which killed 15 million of my people, and unlike Germany, still refuses to apologise for its atrocities, or does it not? Why is this country now proposing to re-examine its role in this war as a victim, ignoring its shameful actions in withdrawing from the world's council and conducting an unprovoked war of aggression? Does the US condemn this country's actions in thus destabilising world security? If this country once again sets off on its imperial path, will the US again join in eliminating this threat to world peace? In the war crimes trials, a man known to be innocent of the charges brought against him was nonetheless convicted and executed. While the man who played the largest part in inciting the atrocities, which disgusted even a Nazi officer present, was let off. Does the US condemn this travesty of justice? And will the US respect the opinion of a country which suffered horrifically in WWII (20 million dead), and which played the largest part of all in removing the Nazis from power (75% of all German casualties)? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-25 06:08:53+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <b89jht$7pcc4$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, >blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... >> >> "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... >> > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates >> UN >> > resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? >> >> Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 >> and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. >> They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will >> take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would >> never lie. > >Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. > >> Have a listen to the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, attempting to >> defend his government's actions. His arguments include a great many >> "must be" statements, appeals to common sense, and circumstantial >> arguments (I won't call it evidence) but very little of substance. In >> fact he barely said anything at all during the Q&A period! >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2964331.stm >> >> > Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't >> finding >> > anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, >> but >> > not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more >> 'made up >> > crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding >> anywhere >> > near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an >> invasion and >> > overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real >> > intelligence, it's still a double standard.) >> >> At this point I no longer believe any substantial evidence ever >> existed. > >The government has chosen to go with literally random reports and whatnot >over, you know, the frickin CIA. > >> > About the only thing that Iraq *might* have been in violation with >> was >> > modifying some missiles to shoot farther than they are allowed, and >> even >> > that hasn't been proven yet. >> >> And military experts have warned that testing methodology can yield >> very different ranges for missiles. > >Right. > >Anyway, that was the entire point of inspections, to find things in >violation of the rules. It's not like they were secret missiles or >anything. Iraq claimed one range, some other people claimed another. > >That's why, duh, we had inspectors. They could figure it out and order >the missiles destroyed if they wanted. > >Inspectors finding a slight disagreement is not a violation of the UN >Resolutions, that's the half the *point* of the inspections. The >inspectors just say 'Yes, that's understandable, but we're not allowing >it, destroy these things now, please.'. > > >It's not a frickin police search of a house looking for anything that >could be considered illegal, it's an *inspection* to find failures to >abide by the UN resolution, deliberate or accidental, and fix them. If >Iraq constantly had 'accidental' failures, yeah, call in the cops. > >But even *we* can't agree if said missiles were in violation. Being in >accidental violation of the UN resolution is like being in accidental >violation of health codes...the inspectors will alert you to it, and get >you to fix it. They don't close down your restaurant for a single >accidental problem. Except that The Mob, who intended to take your restaurant over from day one, gets impatient that the legal authorities are taking too long, so they move in and declare that since you were definitely in violation based on evidence they have but can't tell people about, they have decided, in the public interest, to take over the business. Then they tell the authorities to back off or else, and assure the public that the violations will be taken care of properly so the authorities need not come back to re-inspect.

2003-04-25 08:20:30+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... >> Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates > UN >> resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? > Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 > and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. A bit like Iraq *must* have WMDs, because the US and British governments say so. If no one, including the Iraqis, can actually find them it must be because they are well hidden. > They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will > take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would > never lie. Even when they enguage in actions which would be called "lieing" were "bad governments" or individuals to enguage in... But anyway all of the actions were for "good", a bit like all of Jasmine's actions are...

2003-04-25 08:25:08+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > David Cheatham wrote in message ... >> >>But even *we* can't agree if said missiles were in violation. Being in >>accidental violation of the UN resolution is like being in accidental >>violation of health codes...the inspectors will alert you to it, and get >>you to fix it. They don't close down your restaurant for a single >>accidental problem. > Except that The Mob, who intended to take your restaurant over from day > one, gets impatient that the legal authorities are taking too long, so they > move in and declare that since you were definitely in violation based on > evidence they have but can't tell people about, they have decided, in the > public interest, to take over the business. > Then they tell the authorities to back off or else, and assure the > public that the violations will be taken care of properly so the authorities > need not come back to re-inspect. Then it turns out that The Mob think it will take even longer than it would have taken to finish the inspections to "put things right"... They claim once things have been "sorted" they will go.

2003-04-25 08:38:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > David Cheatham wrote in message ... >>In article <7md88b.d7n.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >>mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk says... >>> In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>> > news:pi1pa.561860$L1.163435@sccrnsc02... >>> >> ~snipped to make shorter~ >>> >> >>> >> > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" >>> >> > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we >>> > have >>> >> > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any >>> >> > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just >>> > to >>> >> liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush >>> > administration is >>> >> pushing that reason so strongly. >>> >>> > I oppose that motive on two grounds. First I think its an poor >>> > euphemism to claim that Iraq has been "liberated" but US conquest, a >>> > US dictatorship now, and a US-formed government in the future. Second >>> > because if we stop respecting the sovereignty of other countries-- >>> >>> With the usual double standards the US government (and it's supporters) >>> whine when the sovereignty of a country they happen to like is not >>> respected (even recognised) by other countries or groups. >> >>Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates UN >>resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? > Apperently Bush and his cronies believe that the USA is now the world's > policeman and only arbiter of morality, so the UN charter just doesn't apply > to, the way Bush has decided so many other international accords and > treaties don't apply. Look how unhappy the US government gets if some other nation ignores some treaty the US actually wants obeyed though. >>Or the double standard about whining how the inspectors aren't finding >>anything, while having intelligence that said where there were WMD, but >>not sharing it. (Of course, this is looking to be more and more 'made up >>crap' instead of 'intelligence'...we certainly aren't finding anywhere >>near the amounts of WMDs or prohibited weapons to justify an invasion >and > overthrow of the government for that reason. But even if we had real >>intelligence, it's still a double standard.) > So far nothing has been found except possibly some attempts by religious > terrorists in Kurdish controlled territory to create WMDs. A factory that Since they are the "good guys" they can't possibly be "terrorists" :) > may have made some gas in the past is not a weapon: until an actual weapon > capable of actually being used in the field is found, I'm assuming that Which also excludes something being hidden so well that even the people who might want to use it can't find it. > Bush's claims they exist are just an excuse for an invasion. And I'm sure > that there are dictators in the world who have done things as bad as Saddam > that the US considers valid allies, so I'm not buying the "liberating the There quite few dictators who have done far worst. Pol Pot being the most obvious example. Anyway both the US and British governments have gone far beyond simply considering brutal dictators "valid allies". Including helping them into power and helping making sure they stay in power. Including SH, until he either upset the US or they got bored with him. > Iraqi people" thing either. It's only very recently that the US government has been making noises about how bad things are for the Iraqi people. >>> If the US really wanted to fight terrorism the first targets would >>> be terrorists the US has been supporting. Simply because they are the >>> easiest ones for the US to find. >> >>No kidding. >> >>> >> As for not publicly releasing the >>> >> locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it >>> > was >>> >> because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the >>> > inspectors >>> >> arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to. >>> >>> > Evidence not delivered can't be counted as evidence, sorry. If the US >>> > did not trust its ability to deliver evidence to Blix in a secure >>> > setting, tough shit. I don't for one minute believe that Saddam could >>> > have moved everything overnight, and if enough solid evidence existed >>> >>> If the Iraqi government had the ability to magically move such weapons >>> it's rather incredible that they wern't moved somewhere to be of actual >>> use against the invading army. >> >>Let's pretend they do have massive amounts of weapons, and decided >not to > use them: >>I mean, honestly, people, think about it for a second. If Saddam being >>overthrown from power and the Baath government crumbling didn't make >them > use said weapons, under what circumstances *would* they use >them? >>If they won't use them under *any* circumstances, then why the hell do >we > care that they possess them? > You'd think that at least one of the hard core groups that have been > doing Saddam's dirty work for years would have been equipped with WMDs and > would have used them as a last resort. > I still think that Saddam saw this war coming a year or more ago (I > certainly did) and ordered the destruction of whatever WMDs he may have > had, long before inviting the UN inspectors back. That way he figured that He didn't just invite the UN, he also invited the US Congress (the only part of the US Government which could legally go to war with Iraq) and the CIA. > even if he lost, he'd make the US look like a lying bully to the world and > posterity.

2003-04-25 08:52:20+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Tim Bruening wrote: > To help build a world beyond terrorism, I believe that the U.S. > should: > Stop funding terrorists and supporting tinpot dictators. There's a better start for you instead of trying to export your flawed 'morals' and 'methods'. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-25 09:39:57+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> Be honest now... >> >> Did the holocaust really occur, or was it a hoax? > Does the US support a country which killed 15 million of my people, and > unlike Germany, still refuses to apologise for its atrocities, or does it But were these the "right" group of dead people? Stimpson J. Cat appears to be one of a group of people who not only insist that only one episode of genocide in the 20th Century matters, but also want to ignore many of the people killed in it. Try typing "forgotten holocaust" into a search engine... > not? Why is this country now proposing to re-examine its role in this war > as a victim, ignoring its shameful actions in withdrawing from the world's Do you mean to try and be seen as a victim, something which is only PC for certain groups in the first place. > council and conducting an unprovoked war of aggression? Does the US condemn > this country's actions in thus destabilising world security? If this > country once again sets off on its imperial path, will the US again join in > eliminating this threat to world peace? Depends if US interests (n.b. US corporations rank ahead of US citizens here) are threatened.

2003-04-25 09:47:38+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:56:56 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: >>In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >>> "Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >>>> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>>> >>>> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to >>> America" >>>> > blame game. >>>> >>>> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >>>> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >>>> >>>> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >>> I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant >>> Saddam and 9/11. >> >>It dosn't really matter, considering there is no substantive connection >>between *any* entity and 9/11. The best there is is circumstantial evidence, >>some of which points at Al Qaida, some of which points elsewhere. None of >>it appears to point to Iraq. >> >>There are various theories, the more honest ones admit to being *theories*. >>The less honest, including those most pushed by the Western media, pretend to >>be "fact". > You mean except for the videos where Osama bin Laden takes credit for it? The ones with virtually inaudible sound and translations which don't match up with what people are saying... > Or are they doctored by nefarious Israeli Mossad agents, Mark? By the way, > did the Holocaust happen? Do all 11 million matter or only the 6 million who's deaths can be used by Zionists?

2003-04-25 11:41:58-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>: >In article <b89jht$7pcc4$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, >blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... >> >> "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... >> > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates >> UN >> > resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? >> >> Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 >> and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. >> They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will >> take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would >> never lie. > >Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. > The resolution is not very long, and is very understandable. READ IT!! http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp Below are the final paragraphs of UNSC Res 1441, which state that the inspectors have to report the violations they find, and if the inspectors report anything, the UNSC has to meet again to decide what the "serious consequences" will be. As the UN reps said *at the time* there is "no automaticity" built into the resolution -- IOW, the US/UK did *not* have automatic authorization for force due to 1441. See also http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-uniraq8nov08.story for what it seemed to be to the players *then*. 11. DIRECTS the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; 12. DECIDES to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 14. DECIDES to remain seized of the matter. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-25 12:30:55-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:ujna8b.erh.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > Even when they enguage in actions which would be called "lieing" were > "bad governments" or individuals to enguage in... > > But anyway all of the actions were for "good", a bit like all of > Jasmine's actions are... I've been seeing parallels between Jasmine and Bush all along.... -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-25 12:56:13-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <MPG.19128011495bd39b989690@130.133.1.4>, David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... >> "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message >> > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates >> > UN resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? >> Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 >> and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. >> They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will >> take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would >> never lie. >Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-25 13:38:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <dskiavo72540k2ghkimm2t8uc8jajaeh25@4ax.com>, sybil5000@yahoo.com says... > Thus spake David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>: > > >In article <b89jht$7pcc4$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > >blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... > >> > >> "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1911d029ebb1420a989684@130.133.1.4... > >> > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates > >> UN > >> > resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? > >> > >> Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 > >> and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. > >> They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will > >> take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would > >> never lie. > > > >Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. > > > > The resolution is not very long, and is very understandable. READ IT!! No, that resolution does not authorize force, which was my entire point.

2003-04-25 13:40:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <nieporen-2920CA.12561325042003@news.fu-berlin.de>, nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > In article <MPG.19128011495bd39b989690@130.133.1.4>, > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > >blacksheep667@hotmail.com says... > >> "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote in message > > >> > Don't forget the double standards of whining about how Iraq violates > >> > UN resolutions, then violating the UN *charter* to attack it? > > >> Ah, but the US is somehow permitted this war under resolution 1441 > >> and/or previous resolutions. I know this because Bush/Blair say so. > >> They can't quote any specific text authorising this action, but I will > >> take it on faith they are right, because I know the government would > >> never lie. > > >Oddly enough, no one seems to be able to quote it. > > Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." Yes, and show me where resolution 660 or any subsequent relevant resolution even mentions WMD. That was the 'get out of Kuwait' resolution. Iraq is, in fact, still not in Kuwait, unless they invaded while I wasn't paying attention.

2003-04-25 17:24:15-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:13:26 -0500, Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: > >Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on >Saudi soil > Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many more..... >Why were US troops on Saudi soil? > >Because they were defending the Saudis from Saddam . . . > An often overlooked point. Until recently, removing the Americans from Saudi was a THREAT to them. As in, "we will remove our troops", and the Saudis say "noooooo!!!". Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-25 17:52:11-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:39:57 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote> >But were these the "right" group of dead people? Stimpson J. Cat appears to >be one of a group of people who not only insist that only one episode of >genocide in the 20th Century matters, but also want to ignore many of the >people killed in it. Try typing "forgotten holocaust" into a search engine... > That is all crap, and you know it. The following question was put to YOU: Did the holocaust occur, or was it a hoax? I did not ask you about the Japanese massacres of Chinese citizens, or any other massacre, because as far as I can tell, your hatred is directed exclusively at Israel and those who hold the jewish faith. The question about the holocaust is just one more attempt to make you see who you really are. Not that I have hope of succeeding or anything. >> not? Why is this country now proposing to re-examine its role in this war >> as a victim, ignoring its shameful actions in withdrawing from the world's > >Do you mean to try and be seen as a victim, something which is only PC >for certain groups in the first place. LOL!!!! "Certain" groups. Again, and seriously, just SAY IT!!!!! We all know your little code by now. You need not hide any more. > Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-25 19:00:55-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-2920CA.12561325042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." 678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change? Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, as is every other member? -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-25 19:01:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message news:b8cchr$vhd$1@kermit.esat.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b8bo2n$8legf$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:ujna8b.erh.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > > > Even when they enguage in actions which would be called "lieing" > > were > > > "bad governments" or individuals to enguage in... > > > > > > But anyway all of the actions were for "good", a bit like all of > > > Jasmine's actions are... > > > > I've been seeing parallels between Jasmine and Bush all along.... > > Ick! George Dubya Bug. I knew there was a reason I thought of an > irritating little maggot every time he opened his gob! LOL -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-25 19:09:04-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>: >In article <dskiavo72540k2ghkimm2t8uc8jajaeh25@4ax.com>, >sybil5000@yahoo.com says... >> > >> >> The resolution is not very long, and is very understandable. READ IT!! > >No, that resolution does not authorize force, which was my entire point. Sorry for the yelling -- really it was just misplaced enthusiasm -- I can't believe that *everyone* hasn't bothered to read it. It's easily accessible and easily understood. Which was, of course, *my* point :) -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-25 20:17:11-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (tiffanyanderson2u@yahoo.com)


The Mitchells spotted Laci while Scott was fishing, all you National Enquirer subscribers should give all your cement theories a rest. I know you think the Mitchells will be dead or Scott will be murdered before this gets to trial, and that's probably a political decision. The prosecutor says its going to take 2 years to bring this to trial. He doesn't want to interfere with the election I guess. He already has, Scott is innocent and any government that tolerates this does not deserve to get reelected. People magazine has published mystifying pictures of Amber and Scott. On first glance, they look like cardboard cutouts that provided Scott Peterson the opportunity to stick his head through a scenario where it did not belong. I am not trying to suggest they are fake, that may very well be the intended solicitation, but when I first spotted them it was surrealistic because Ron Frey had said that he had a picture of Scott in a tuxedo and Scott does in fact look like he is wearing a rented tux on the bottom half of the picture that highlights Amber Frey's red dress but the top half of Scott's suit betrays a regular shirt and tie. Too strange to find the words to describe... bizarre revision or metamorphosis. Regardless, assuming these pictures are authentic and taking them at face value, they show a very immature Scott Peterson and I don't know what they show about Amber Frey. Clearly, the only way to make head or tail out of these pictures it to sit down with Scott and Amber, without the glare of an orchestrated press conference, and to find out what this is all about. In the meantime, these pictures are relatively meaningless because their context is too bizarre to develop any reliable facts without the opportunity to engage a serious probe. What we do know, with absolute certainty is that Amber's sister, Ava, has demonized Scott Peterson the way Kathleen Willey demonized President Bill Clinton. Ava frey has in fact said that she actually feared for Amber's life and this bizarre allegation is too preposterous to take seriously. In Willey's case, even her cat was not safe, as long as the demon, Bill Clinton, was a free man. The truth is not exactly the script that the Freys aggressively promote. At worst, Scott Peterson was gullible, unfaithful and immature. Scott Peterson is not Lizzy Borden or Nancy Grace and he is clearly more than intelligent enough to understand the fact that Laci Peterson was absolutely irreplaceable. The only authentic pictures that People magazine published, that do not leave anything to the imagination, are on the cover and they are about the timeless love story between Scott and Laci. The picture on the right is a picture of Laci Peterson's incredible smile and the one on the left is a picture of the agony and the unprecedented, pain and grief, that is deeply etched, on Scott Peterson's face. Ava Frey, no doubt, has an entirely different interpretation. http://www.1st.shorturl.com

2003-04-25 21:31:05-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>)


> From: Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> > Organization: Alphabetical by height > Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.tv.angel > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:24:15 -0500 > Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:13:26 -0500, Ed Schoenfeld > <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> >> Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on >> Saudi soil >> > Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. > Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many > more..... > That is Al Qaeda's publicly stated purpose, but it is stated by Bin Laden that the the specific item that made him start the group was seeing 'infidels' (i.e. US troops) in Saudi, defending the Holy City Mecca because the Saudis themselves were incapable of it. If you want to think of it in another way, the US presence in Saudi was the proximate cause of Bin Laden's reaction, getting All the non-muslims out of Islamic lands is the 'ultima ratio.' > >> Why were US troops on Saudi soil? >> >> Because they were defending the Saudis from Saddam . . . >> > An often overlooked point. Until recently, removing the Americans from > Saudi was a THREAT to them. As in, "we will remove our troops", and > the Saudis say "noooooo!!!". And the way to make it possible for the US to pull out of Saudi is to get rid of Saddam. Now there's no need for US troops to be there. and we can take away at least one irritation that influences Arab public opinion against the US. Note that Blair, at least, tied the successful removal of Saddam to a so-called 'Roadmap' for re-starting the Isreali-Palestinian 'peace process' -- a resolution to that trouble would, at least in theory, remove another anti-western irritant in the Middle east. Mind you, I'm not saying that *I* think backing off on these issues will be the successful way to defuse terrorism, but it looks as if *somebody* in a policy making position thinks it may be *part* of the solution. Ed

2003-04-25 22:10:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:06:27 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Why do you always say "A certain foriegn country". Just name it and be >> done. > >Saudi Arabia? Specifically, the Bin Laden family, which has strong >financial links with the Bush family. Given free rein to leave the US even >while one of their members was high on the Most-Wanted list. And last year, >IIRC, Saudi Arabia chose to ignore US requests for suspects to be handed >over, their executions also conveniently eliminating evidence. > > He means Israel. Not Saudi Arabia. > >Does the US support a country which killed 15 million of my people, and >unlike Germany, still refuses to apologise for its atrocities, or does it >not? Why is this country now proposing to re-examine its role in this war >as a victim, ignoring its shameful actions in withdrawing from the world's >council and conducting an unprovoked war of aggression? Does the US condemn >this country's actions in thus destabilising world security? If this >country once again sets off on its imperial path, will the US again join in >eliminating this threat to world peace? > You must mean Japan. >In the war crimes trials, a man known to be innocent of the charges brought >against him was nonetheless convicted and executed. While the man who >played the largest part in inciting the atrocities, which disgusted even a >Nazi officer present, was let off. Does the US condemn this travesty of >justice? > >And will the US respect the opinion of a country which suffered horrifically >in WWII (20 million dead), and which played the largest part of all in >removing the Nazis from power (75% of all German casualties)? > You must mean Russia. >Cheers, ymt. > Mark Evans is an anti-semitic bigot. Period. He tries to claim that his hatred is limited only to Israelis (and it is hatred, pure and simple). Really, it is leveled against anyone who is of the jewish faith. Thats why I asked about the holocaust. My questions were directed to him personally. When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to Israel. NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To him, jews are behind all of the problems in the world. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-25 23:18:48+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b8bo2n$8legf$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ujna8b.erh.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > > Even when they enguage in actions which would be called "lieing" > were > > "bad governments" or individuals to enguage in... > > > > But anyway all of the actions were for "good", a bit like all of > > Jasmine's actions are... > > I've been seeing parallels between Jasmine and Bush all along.... Ick! George Dubya Bug. I knew there was a reason I thought of an irritating little maggot every time he opened his gob! Caroline

2003-04-26 00:33:27+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> > Mark Evans is an anti-semitic bigot. Period. He tries to claim that > his hatred is limited only to Israelis (and it is hatred, pure and > simple). Really, it is leveled against anyone who is of the jewish > faith. Thats why I asked about the holocaust. > My questions were directed to him personally. But my question is addressed to you, and all those who bring up the Holocaust whenever the Israel-Palestine issue is raised. There is a country that withdrew from the League of Nations (dismissing it as irrelevant), invaded my homeland (on a pretext which was later shown to be false), killed 15 million of my people, and yet refuses to admit its wrongdoings. Is the US going to address this (and not by referring to an imaginary 150 year alliance with said country)? Is the US going to provide aid for my people as it currently does for Israel? And if you do not categorically condemn the Japanese, does this make you an anti-Chinese bigot? I dunno about you, but my parents lived under occupation, but are also willing to see it as part of a wider history. I don't begrudge the Japanese their success, but am irritated whenever people point to the Holocaust as something which grants Israel the right to do whatever it wants, labelling protesters as 'anti-semitic' and bracketing them with the Nazis. IMO, to do so is to trivialise the original, to insult those who suffered through the real thing. > When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to Israel. > NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To him, jews > are behind all of the problems in the world. It's a fair comment to say that the Jewish portion of the population of Israel is behind a fair proportion of the world's problems. Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating against the Muslim portion. Israel refuses to keep its side of the Oslo agreement, encouraging Jewish settlers to populate land that has been ceded to the Palestinian authorities. Faced with constant discrimination, illegal reduction of their land and military attacks, the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs gain the sympathy of Muslims in the region. With their support, they mount terrorist attacks on Israel in an attempt to do something, anything, to alleviate their feeling of helplessness. Israel hits back with ever increasing force, which provokes further extremism. The implicit support of the world's only superpower gives Israel the power to do anything it likes. Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur against the injustices. Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which saw some damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in particular. There are other factors in the Christian-Muslim stand-off, such as the oppression of the populace by western-backed dictators and the overwhelming economic and military superiority of the Christian world. However, show the world that international treaties matter by forcing Israel to keep its promises, and you'll have removed the most blatant cause of resentment in the mix. Of course, a further step will be to keep those agreements yourself, but then we can't ask for everything in one go. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-26 00:53:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:33:27 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >But my question is addressed to you, and all those who bring up the >Holocaust whenever the Israel-Palestine issue is raised. I address this in my second response block below... >There is a country >that withdrew from the League of Nations (dismissing it as irrelevant), >invaded my homeland (on a pretext which was later shown to be false), killed >15 million of my people, and yet refuses to admit its wrongdoings. Is the >US going to address this (and not by referring to an imaginary 150 year >alliance with said country)? Is the US going to provide aid for my people >as it currently does for Israel? And if you do not categorically condemn >the Japanese, does this make you an anti-Chinese bigot? Well, for starters, China is a communist country now. The USA is not known to be on the freindliest terms with communist countries. If you want aid of the sort Israel gets (which is WAY overstated by many), you will probably need to change this first. I am not being mean, just realistic. > >I dunno about you, but my parents lived under occupation, but are also >willing to see it as part of a wider history. I don't begrudge the Japanese >their success, but am irritated whenever people point to the Holocaust as >something which grants Israel the right to do whatever it wants, labelling >protesters as 'anti-semitic' and bracketing them with the Nazis. IMO, to do >so is to trivialise the original, to insult those who suffered through the >real thing. > I do NOT believe that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants. I ALSO do not believe that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks in NYC, as does Mr. Evans. The holocaust is irrelevant to the discussion. I questioned Mr. Evans about it, because most kooks like him deny that it occured. It was a means to identify a bigot. Period. Yes, I am pro-Israel. Not because of the holocaust. I support them becuase they are in a fight for survival against the vicous cancer that is Islamic terrorism. Having had our own little bout of that disease here in the USA, I can relate. > >> When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to Israel. >> NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To him, jews >> are behind all of the problems in the world. > >It's a fair comment to say that the Jewish portion of the population of >Israel is behind a fair proportion of the world's problems. > Not really. It is more accurate to say that fanatical islamic terrorists who target Israel are the problem. The Israelis are the problem in that they exist. It is the muslims who wish to make them cease to exist. The muslim terrorists are the aggressors. Hence, they are the source of the problem. >Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating against the >Muslim portion. Because some among the muslim portion keep blowing themselves up on buses. If they quit doing this, maybe the others would be treated better. Suicide bombing does not make freinds. Period. > Israel refuses to keep its side of the Oslo agreement, >encouraging Jewish settlers to populate land that has been ceded to the >Palestinian authorities. Faced with constant discrimination, illegal >reduction of their land and military attacks, the Palestinians and Israeli >Arabs gain the sympathy of Muslims in the region. With their support, they >mount terrorist attacks on Israel in an attempt to do something, anything, >to alleviate their feeling of helplessness. At one time, I would have said that some of the above complaints are valid. But do you know what? Nobody cares anymore. When the world sees people celebrating the fact that their children blew up themselves and many others on a bus, it does not exactly garner sympathy for their plight. We only see frenzied terrorists who are barely recognizable as human. After 9/11, which was done to some degree on behalf of the Palestinians, good luck getting widespread support for Pals in the USA. There is SOME support. So anybody reading this who supports the Palestinian cause, saying "Hey, I live in the USA!", I know this. I am just saying you are the minority here. Especially after 9/11. To be honest, before 9/11, the mideast turmoil was distant to most. Now, alot of people pay more attention. Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end the conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all settlements beyond the green line. Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That one ain't gonna happen. >Israel hits back with ever >increasing force, which provokes further extremism. It is a fight for survival. What are they supposed to do? However much you object to the formation of Israel in 1948, it should be clear by now that they are not leaving. It is about as likely to happen as the USA disbanding and turning over the land to the natives. Sounds good in PC circles, but it will never happen. Even the liberals won't do it. >The implicit support of >the world's only superpower gives Israel the power to do anything it likes. Hence 9/11. They sure got our attention. Probably misgaged the response, though. btw - Tell me again how flying jets into our skyscrapers was supposed to get sympathy for the cause? >Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur against >the injustices. Don't know what Europe you are talking about. They tend to despise Israel, and are very open about it. >Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, >the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which saw some >damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in particular. > And stragely, it is the Muslim world that flew jets into the WTC. Odd, isn't it. The christians are supposedly on a crusade. When is the last time a christian blew up a bus full of muslims? This is where the constant disinformation comes in. They do not get the truth of things. They get state controlled horseshit information. What is REALLY funny, is that people like Mark Evans come along, read the same crap from the same sources, and say things like "What about the 1000 Israelis who were late to work at the WTC?". At least the Palestinians and many other Arabs are duped their entire lives, kind of a bainwashing thing. Mark Evans and his ilk are just gullible fools. Pure and simple. >There are other factors in the Christian-Muslim stand-off, such as the >oppression of the populace by western-backed dictators and the overwhelming >economic and military superiority of the Christian world. That is our problem why??? Capitalists will always have more. Period. They (and you) should try it instead of knocking it. The whole dictatorship thing or communist thing does not generally tend to create wealth for the masses. >However, show the >world that international treaties matter by forcing Israel to keep its >promises, and you'll have removed the most blatant cause of resentment in >the mix. Stop the damn terrorism, and Israel might have a CHANCE to keep their promises. They are not going to keep their promises, when time and time again the opportunity is used for further terrorism. A couple dozen Israelis killed on a bus, or at a passover dinner or something, seems piddly to you. But they sure don't like it. I don't blame them. Further, even if a deal is made with the PA, will that same deal apply to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.......... It is an ugly situation. >Of course, a further step will be to keep those agreements >yourself, but then we can't ask for everything in one go. > No more jets crashing into skyscrapers would make us alot more likely to give a damn. >Cheers, ymt. > Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 01:15:00-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>)


> From: "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> > > > Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... >> >> >> And the way to make it possible for the US to pull out of Saudi is to get >> rid of Saddam. Now there's no need for US troops to be there. and we can >> take away at least one irritation that influences Arab public opinion >> against the US. >> >> Note that Blair, at least, tied the successful removal of Saddam to a >> so-called 'Roadmap' for re-starting the Isreali-Palestinian 'peace process' >> -- a resolution to that trouble would, at least in theory, remove another >> anti-western irritant in the Middle east. >> >> Mind you, I'm not saying that *I* think backing off on these issues will be >> the successful way to defuse terrorism, but it looks as if *somebody* in a >> policy making position thinks it may be *part* of the solution. > > Since the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and unquestioning, > constant US support for anything the Israelis do to the Palestinians, up to > and including calling the entire Palestinian Authority a terrorist > organisation are the two main points causing Islamic dislike of the USA, it > seems likely that putting an end to both could go a long way towards > decreasing terrorism. It might, if in fact US troops can get out of the region altogether and if the 'Roadmap' will lead to a peace settlement acceptable to a sufficiently large number of Arabs. I have some doubts about both of those, though. It will be impractical the the troops to leave Iraq foe some time, and while the Israelis have occasionally talked peace with the PA, the process has yet to bring Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups on board (as well as some of the more extreme groups of Israelis). > These people aren't killing themselves by wearing explosive belts and > blowing them up or flying planes into buildings for fun, or to send a > message that they are a tiny bit irritated because they object to > Christianity and Capitalism, as most Americans seem to think. I never claimed they were. I was pointing out that removing Saddam Hussein was an essential step in ameliorating one of the very real issues that has fostered terrorism in Islamic countries. > Nor are they > any more religiously fanatic than the Christian fundamentalists who are > killing doctors who perform legal abortions, or trying to stop your kids > from learning evolution because their holy book says different. I'd bet > that one of the differences between Bush and Saddam Hussein is that Hussein > understands and believes in Evolution and Bush doesn't. Some fanatics are more fanatical than other fanatics, but sorting them out in rank order isn't very much fun and tends to warp the brain. > > And will you please try to remember that it's ISRAEL! Doesn't anyone > remember Anwar Sadat and his pronunciation? Ever since he was assassinated, > US newspeople have invented some imaginary place called Isreal. But it's > ISRAEL! Either learn to pronounce it and spell it or stop yammering about > it. > Since you have (to the best of my knowledge) not ever heard me pronounce (or mispronounce) Israel, I am rather at a loss as to why you chose my post to make this comment. Is it time for you to turn off the computer for a while? Ed

2003-04-26 03:24:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... > > >> From: Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> >> Organization: Alphabetical by height >> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.tv.angel >> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:24:15 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:13:26 -0500, Ed Schoenfeld >> <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on >>> Saudi soil >>> >> Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. >> Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many >> more..... >> > >That is Al Qaeda's publicly stated purpose, but it is stated by Bin Laden >that the the specific item that made him start the group was seeing >'infidels' (i.e. US troops) in Saudi, defending the Holy City Mecca because >the Saudis themselves were incapable of it. > >If you want to think of it in another way, the US presence in Saudi was the >proximate cause of Bin Laden's reaction, getting All the non-muslims out of >Islamic lands is the 'ultima ratio.' > > >> >>> Why were US troops on Saudi soil? >>> >>> Because they were defending the Saudis from Saddam . . . >>> >> An often overlooked point. Until recently, removing the Americans from >> Saudi was a THREAT to them. As in, "we will remove our troops", and >> the Saudis say "noooooo!!!". > >And the way to make it possible for the US to pull out of Saudi is to get >rid of Saddam. Now there's no need for US troops to be there. and we can >take away at least one irritation that influences Arab public opinion >against the US. > >Note that Blair, at least, tied the successful removal of Saddam to a >so-called 'Roadmap' for re-starting the Isreali-Palestinian 'peace process' >-- a resolution to that trouble would, at least in theory, remove another >anti-western irritant in the Middle east. > >Mind you, I'm not saying that *I* think backing off on these issues will be >the successful way to defuse terrorism, but it looks as if *somebody* in a >policy making position thinks it may be *part* of the solution. Since the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and unquestioning, constant US support for anything the Israelis do to the Palestinians, up to and including calling the entire Palestinian Authority a terrorist organisation are the two main points causing Islamic dislike of the USA, it seems likely that putting an end to both could go a long way towards decreasing terrorism. These people aren't killing themselves by wearing explosive belts and blowing them up or flying planes into buildings for fun, or to send a message that they are a tiny bit irritated because they object to Christianity and Capitalism, as most Americans seem to think. Nor are they any more religiously fanatic than the Christian fundamentalists who are killing doctors who perform legal abortions, or trying to stop your kids from learning evolution because their holy book says different. I'd bet that one of the differences between Bush and Saddam Hussein is that Hussein understands and believes in Evolution and Bush doesn't. And will you please try to remember that it's ISRAEL! Doesn't anyone remember Anwar Sadat and his pronunciation? Ever since he was assassinated, US newspeople have invented some imaginary place called Isreal. But it's ISRAEL! Either learn to pronounce it and spell it or stop yammering about it.

2003-04-26 04:22:24+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:33:27 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> There is a country >> that withdrew from the League of Nations (dismissing it as >> irrelevant), invaded my homeland (on a pretext which was later shown >> to be false), killed 15 million of my people, and yet refuses to >> admit its wrongdoings. Is the US going to address this (and not by >> referring to an imaginary 150 year alliance with said country)? Is >> the US going to provide aid for my people as it currently does for >> Israel? And if you do not categorically condemn the Japanese, does >> this make you an anti-Chinese bigot? > > Well, for starters, China is a communist country now. The USA is not > known to be on the freindliest terms with communist countries. If you > want aid of the sort Israel gets (which is WAY overstated by many), > you will probably need to change this first. I am not being mean, just > realistic. I wouldn't say that China is in any recognisable way Communist. Just about all the countries in the EU (including the UK) are more socialist in substance. From what I've read, China is more a rural semi-economy subsidised (in the traditional way) by an ultra-capitalist facade in the cities. However, the knee-jerk antagonism towards Communism is, anyway, stupid. Vietnam is probably the best known example of a country which was pushed towards the USSR by a US fear that it may turn Communist. >> I dunno about you, but my parents lived under occupation, but are >> also willing to see it as part of a wider history. I don't begrudge >> the Japanese their success, but am irritated whenever people point >> to the Holocaust as something which grants Israel the right to do >> whatever it wants, labelling protesters as 'anti-semitic' and >> bracketing them with the Nazis. IMO, to do so is to trivialise the >> original, to insult those who suffered through the real thing. >> > > I do NOT believe that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants. I > ALSO do not believe that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks in NYC, as > does Mr. Evans. Admittedly, I came late into this seemingly lengthy feud between yourself and Evans. But I've not seen this, nor your other claims (see below) in his posts. > The holocaust is irrelevant to the discussion. I > questioned Mr. Evans about it, because most kooks like him deny that > it occured. It was a means to identify a bigot. Period. Yes, I am > pro-Israel. Not because of the holocaust. I support them becuase they > are in a fight for survival against the vicous cancer that is Islamic > terrorism. Having had our own little bout of that disease here in the > USA, I can relate. Some of us reckon that the best way to end the inter-tribal squabbling would be for the various sides to keep their promises. Unfortunately, all the news sources that I've seen and read say that the Israelis are usually the first to provoke a reaction, which is met by a massive counter-reaction entirely out of proportion to the threat. IIRC, ten times as many Palestinians are being killed as are Israelis. Also note that the current intifada was prefaced by then minister Ariel Sharon's controversial (and highly provocative) visit to some hill or other in Jerusalem. >>> When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to >>> Israel. NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To >>> him, jews >>> are behind all of the problems in the world. >> >> It's a fair comment to say that the Jewish portion of the population >> of Israel is behind a fair proportion of the world's problems. >> > > Not really. It is more accurate to say that fanatical islamic > terrorists who target Israel are the problem. The Israelis are the > problem in that they exist. It is the muslims who wish to make them > cease to exist. The muslim terrorists are the aggressors. Hence, they > are the source of the problem. And the Israeli state which keeps invading and occupying the Palestinian state is not a problem? Note that for every Israeli death in this intifada, there are ten Palestinian deaths. From where I'm sitting (in the UK watching BBC news) it looks like the Israelis who have the wherewithal to be the aggressors. >> Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating >> against the Muslim portion. > > Because some among the muslim portion keep blowing themselves up on > buses. If they quit doing this, maybe the others would be treated > better. Suicide bombing does not make freinds. Period. Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the exchange rate for a Christian? >> Israel refuses to keep its side of the Oslo agreement, >> encouraging Jewish settlers to populate land that has been ceded to >> the Palestinian authorities. Faced with constant discrimination, >> illegal reduction of their land and military attacks, the >> Palestinians and Israeli Arabs gain the sympathy of Muslims in the >> region. With their support, they mount terrorist attacks on Israel >> in an attempt to do something, anything, to alleviate their feeling >> of helplessness. > > At one time, I would have said that some of the above complaints are > valid. But do you know what? Nobody cares anymore. When the world sees > people celebrating the fact that their children blew up themselves and > many others on a bus, it does not exactly garner sympathy for their > plight. We only see frenzied terrorists who are barely recognizable as > human. After 9/11, which was done to some degree on behalf of the > Palestinians, good luck getting widespread support for Pals in the > USA. There is SOME support. So anybody reading this who supports the > Palestinian cause, saying "Hey, I live in the USA!", I know this. I am > just saying you are the minority here. Especially after 9/11. To be > honest, before 9/11, the mideast turmoil was distant to most. Now, > alot of people pay more attention. In the minority? The IRA, which was heavily supported by Irish expats in the US, didn't make friends in the UK by blowing up civilians. However, after the Madwoman was gone, the UK government recognised that terrorism was a political problem, best solved by political engagement. The French and Spanish have had their own problems with Algeria and Catalan nationalists, not to mention Russia and Chechnya. Perhaps Spain is a bad example, but in the other cases, terrorism was dealt with by eliminating its source, the political will that keeps the cause alive. In the words of then Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001. Many of us have lived with it for as long as we can remember, and were seeing an end to it (after years of painful learning), only for that to crop up. Islamic fundamentalism is no more a threat to me that Irish republicanism. But eliminating it will surely require the same mindset. History suggests so. Which is why it's so irritating to see the Israelis and Americans making the same mistakes that we did. > Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end the > conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always > refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all > settlements beyond the green line. I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that all further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli territory to be included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, and the building has gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Given the political price to be paid, and his past track record, I find the deal that you mention to be highly improbable. Are you sure that it was sanctioned by the PM? I know that Peres has had his hands rapped on one occasion for going beyond his portfolio. > Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort > to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide > bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. > The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That > one ain't gonna happen. Err, the PLO signed a treaty (brokered by the US) that established peace. The Israeli signatory was assassinated, and his successor unilaterally repudiated the treaty (an illegal act). Even if Israel stops building now, and refrains from sending its military into Palestinian towns, it would still be in material breach of the treaty. It would remain so until Israel hands over authority over the land to the Palestine, or until the PLO sign a new treaty. Given that this is effectively an invasion, it's quite understandable (if regrettable) that the Palestinian people would use whatever means were available to retaliate. >> Israel hits back with ever >> increasing force, which provokes further extremism. > > It is a fight for survival. What are they supposed to do? However much > you object to the formation of Israel in 1948, it should be clear by > now that they are not leaving. It is about as likely to happen as the > USA disbanding and turning over the land to the natives. Sounds good > in PC circles, but it will never happen. Even the liberals won't do > it. Straw man, straw man. A peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians *was* negotiated, and recognised by all sides in the region, which didn't require the Israelis to leave the region. However, Israel broke the peace by claiming authority over land that by treaty belongs to Palestine. Perhaps it's gone too far by now to allow for a clean peace. But any peace, dirty or clean, must be based on the Oslo agreement. >> The implicit support of >> the world's only superpower gives Israel the power to do anything it >> likes. > > Hence 9/11. They sure got our attention. Probably misgaged the > response, though. WTF does that have to do with Palestine? And the support dates back long before 2001. > btw - Tell me again how flying jets into our skyscrapers was supposed > to get sympathy for the cause? Were there any Palestinians in the crews? Were there any Iraqis in the crews? Most of us in the UK can't believe what we're hearing, but apparently 2/3 of America believes that Iraq was responsible for that incident, despite the lack of evidence in that direction, despite its denial by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Playing the victim doesn't suit a superpower, and it certainly doesn't give you free rein to strike out at all you hate, in absence of evidence. >> Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur >> against the injustices. > > Don't know what Europe you are talking about. They tend to despise > Israel, and are very open about it. The UK (as judged by the BBC, a notably centrist news source) doesn't like what's going on, but isn't too sympathetic towards the Israelis, who after all are killing ten Palestinians for every one of their dead. Probably due to the fact that Israel civilians (and not just the easily transferred military) are occupying Palestinian land. >> Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, >> the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which >> saw some damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in >> particular. > > And stragely, it is the Muslim world that flew jets into the WTC. Odd, > isn't it. The christians are supposedly on a crusade. When is the last > time a christian blew up a bus full of muslims? The Iraq war? From what I've heard, your boys were pretty trigger-happy. > This is where the > constant disinformation comes in. They do not get the truth of things. > They get state controlled horseshit information. What is REALLY funny, > is that people like Mark Evans come along, read the same crap from the > same sources, and say things like "What about the 1000 Israelis who > were late to work at the WTC?". At least the Palestinians and many > other Arabs are duped their entire lives, kind of a bainwashing thing. > Mark Evans and his ilk are just gullible fools. Pure and simple. I've not seen anyone remotely sensible giving that kind of rumour credence. I base my opinions on information which can be cross-referenced via reliable news sources. >> There are other factors in the Christian-Muslim stand-off, such as >> the oppression of the populace by western-backed dictators and the >> overwhelming economic and military superiority of the Christian >> world. > > That is our problem why??? Capitalists will always have more. Period. > They (and you) should try it instead of knocking it. The whole > dictatorship thing or communist thing does not generally tend to > create wealth for the masses. That's a cause. That's not our problem. Well, not the wealth part anyway. What is our problem is our habit of installing and backing governments that are disliked by the majority of their population. Dictators such as Saddam Hussein. Regimes such as the Sauds. Who tend to use military provided by the west to repress any opposition. Remember the Shi-ites after GWI? Or the Kurds in the 80s? And Donald is now saying that there will be no theocracy in Iraq. Even if the majority of the population desire it to be so? >> However, show the >> world that international treaties matter by forcing Israel to keep >> its promises, and you'll have removed the most blatant cause of >> resentment in the mix. > > Stop the damn terrorism, and Israel might have a CHANCE to keep their > promises. They are not going to keep their promises, when time and > time again the opportunity is used for further terrorism. A couple > dozen Israelis killed on a bus, or at a passover dinner or something, > seems piddly to you. But they sure don't like it. I don't blame them. IIRC, Israel started its campaign of settlement building before any suicide bombers appeared. That was when the treaty was first broken. > Further, even if a deal is made with the PA, will that same deal apply > to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.......... > > It is an ugly situation. AFAIK, Egypt and Jordan have peace deals with Israel, and Syria was looking to sign one. Given Israel's recent record of treaty-breaking, is there any moral reason (other than threat of force) why they should keep their side of the bargain? >> Of course, a further step will be to keep those agreements >> yourself, but then we can't ask for everything in one go. > > No more jets crashing into skyscrapers would make us alot more likely > to give a damn. I seem to remember the Kyoto agreement, START (Mk whatever), and various other agreements being broken before 11th September 2001. And now it seems that you're back on the trail of building new nuclear weapons. For heck's sake, you're the world's only superpower with the largest arsenal of nucelar weaponry on earth. Why do you need any more WMDs?

2003-04-26 05:56:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I wouldn't say that China is in any recognisable way Communist. Just about >all the countries in the EU (including the UK) are more socialist in >substance. From what I've read, China is more a rural semi-economy >subsidised (in the traditional way) by an ultra-capitalist facade in the >cities. However, the knee-jerk antagonism towards Communism is, anyway, >stupid. Vietnam is probably the best known example of a country which was >pushed towards the USSR by a US fear that it may turn Communist. > > Sure, except they ARE communists, aren't they? The knee jerk reaction by the US may be silly. I was not saying that the US attitude towards communism is the best or correct attitude to possess. It's more a hold over from the cold war. I don't think any here worry about 'reds' any more. I was just stating reality, which is that the US is not going to provide much aid to a communist nation. Especially a nation that has 'frosty' relations with us. Example - the recent spy plane incident. > >> The holocaust is irrelevant to the discussion. I >> questioned Mr. Evans about it, because most kooks like him deny that >> it occured. It was a means to identify a bigot. Period. Yes, I am >> pro-Israel. Not because of the holocaust. I support them becuase they >> are in a fight for survival against the vicous cancer that is Islamic >> terrorism. Having had our own little bout of that disease here in the >> USA, I can relate. > >Some of us reckon that the best way to end the inter-tribal squabbling would >be for the various sides to keep their promises. Unfortunately, all the >news sources that I've seen and read say that the Israelis are usually the >first to provoke a reaction, which is met by a massive counter-reaction >entirely out of proportion to the threat. IIRC, ten times as many >Palestinians are being killed as are Israelis. Also note that the current >intifada was prefaced by then minister Ariel Sharon's controversial (and >highly provocative) visit to some hill or other in Jerusalem. > Yes, I know of the 'hill' incident that you speak of. Would you not consider the intifadah just an ever so slight over reaction though? > >And the Israeli state which keeps invading and occupying the Palestinian >state is not a problem? Note that for every Israeli death in this intifada, >there are ten Palestinian deaths. From where I'm sitting (in the UK >watching BBC news) it looks like the Israelis who have the wherewithal to be >the aggressors. > It's not about numbers. If the Palestinians would STOP attacking the Israelis, the IDF responses would also cease. No action = no reaction. Simply taking it on the chin is not an option for Israel. If they do this, they will cease to exist. The terrorists (Hamas, Hezbollah...) are not going to stop, so long as Israel exists. There simply are no options. They have to kill the terrorists wherever they may go. They have been shockingly successful. >>> Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating >>> against the Muslim portion. >> >> Because some among the muslim portion keep blowing themselves up on >> buses. If they quit doing this, maybe the others would be treated >> better. Suicide bombing does not make freinds. Period. > >Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by Ariel >Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land does not make >friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into urban areas does not >make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians. >Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the exchange rate for a Christian? > Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing to do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course they are more successful at killing terrorists. >>> Israel refuses to keep its side of the Oslo agreement, >>> encouraging Jewish settlers to populate land that has been ceded to >>> the Palestinian authorities. Faced with constant discrimination, >>> illegal reduction of their land and military attacks, the >>> Palestinians and Israeli Arabs gain the sympathy of Muslims in the >>> region. With their support, they mount terrorist attacks on Israel >>> in an attempt to do something, anything, to alleviate their feeling >>> of helplessness. >> >> At one time, I would have said that some of the above complaints are >> valid. But do you know what? Nobody cares anymore. When the world sees >> people celebrating the fact that their children blew up themselves and >> many others on a bus, it does not exactly garner sympathy for their >> plight. We only see frenzied terrorists who are barely recognizable as >> human. After 9/11, which was done to some degree on behalf of the >> Palestinians, good luck getting widespread support for Pals in the >> USA. There is SOME support. So anybody reading this who supports the >> Palestinian cause, saying "Hey, I live in the USA!", I know this. I am >> just saying you are the minority here. Especially after 9/11. To be >> honest, before 9/11, the mideast turmoil was distant to most. Now, >> alot of people pay more attention. > >In the minority? The IRA, which was heavily supported by Irish expats in >the US, didn't make friends in the UK by blowing up civilians. However, >after the Madwoman was gone, the UK government recognised that terrorism was >a political problem, best solved by political engagement. The French and >Spanish have had their own problems with Algeria and Catalan nationalists, >not to mention Russia and Chechnya. Perhaps Spain is a bad example, but in >the other cases, terrorism was dealt with by eliminating its source, the >political will that keeps the cause alive. In the words of then Shadow Home >Secretary Tony Blair, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". > But again, you are not understanding the situation. The Israelis have been TRYING to eliminate the problem through political means. They are not the belligerent party here. Groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will NOT accept anything short of the complete removal of Israel. That is simply NOT going to happen. >Terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001. Many of us have lived with >it for as long as we can remember, and were seeing an end to it (after years >of painful learning), only for that to crop up. Islamic fundamentalism is >no more a threat to me that Irish republicanism. But eliminating it will >surely require the same mindset. History suggests so. Which is why it's so >irritating to see the Israelis and Americans making the same mistakes that >we did. > I am largely ignorant of the Irish situation. From an American perspective, large scale international terrorism on our soil DID begin on 9/11. Not saying that nothing happened before that, just nothing so damn big. > >> Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end the >> conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always >> refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all >> settlements beyond the green line. > >I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that all >further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli territory to be >included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, and the building has >gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Given the political price to be >paid, and his past track record, I find the deal that you mention to be >highly improbable. Are you sure that it was sanctioned by the PM? I know >that Peres has had his hands rapped on one occasion for going beyond his >portfolio. > It was the Camp David summit in July of 2000. Bill Clinton was the arbiter. It was between Ehud Barak and Arafat. Google it. It's real. > >> Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort >> to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide >> bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. >> The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That >> one ain't gonna happen. > >Err, the PLO signed a treaty (brokered by the US) that established peace. >The Israeli signatory was assassinated, and his successor unilaterally >repudiated the treaty (an illegal act). Even if Israel stops building now, >and refrains from sending its military into Palestinian towns, it would >still be in material breach of the treaty. It would remain so until Israel >hands over authority over the land to the Palestine, or until the PLO sign a >new treaty. Given that this is effectively an invasion, it's quite >understandable (if regrettable) that the Palestinian people would use >whatever means were available to retaliate. > The outpost settlers are an issue. This I do not deny. However, you cannot hold them completely accountable for the breakdown. More on this in a minute..... > >>> Israel hits back with ever >>> increasing force, which provokes further extremism. >> >> It is a fight for survival. What are they supposed to do? However much >> you object to the formation of Israel in 1948, it should be clear by >> now that they are not leaving. It is about as likely to happen as the >> USA disbanding and turning over the land to the natives. Sounds good >> in PC circles, but it will never happen. Even the liberals won't do >> it. > >Straw man, straw man. A peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians >*was* negotiated, and recognised by all sides in the region, which didn't >require the Israelis to leave the region. However, Israel broke the peace >by claiming authority over land that by treaty belongs to Palestine. >Perhaps it's gone too far by now to allow for a clean peace. But any peace, >dirty or clean, must be based on the Oslo agreement. > No. Read the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah. They have web sites. They call for the removal of Israel. You claim that there has been peace in the region. No. There has been war since 1948, with a few peaceful interludes here and there. The terror groups like Hamas broke the peace by bombings in Israel. The Oslo accords were signed in 1993. Between 1993 and 1998, 260 Israelis were killed, and almost 1000 wounded by terrorist bombings. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that time period during the HEART of what you call peace? The agreement was doomed from the onset. It was a joke. A ploy to prop up Bill Clinton. > >>> The implicit support of >>> the world's only superpower gives Israel the power to do anything it >>> likes. >> >> Hence 9/11. They sure got our attention. Probably misgaged the >> response, though. > >WTF does that have to do with Palestine? And the support dates back long >before 2001. duh... The support was one of the CAUSES of 9/11. Reread my words above. I said *HENCE* 9/11. Not *SINCE* 9/11. > The USA is in general a supporter of Israel. As such, they were attacked on 9/11 by anti-Israeli/American terrorists. Yes, the US presence in Saudi was also a reason. FYI - there is no 'Palestine'. > >Were there any Palestinians in the crews? Were there any Iraqis in the >crews? Most of us in the UK can't believe what we're hearing, but >apparently 2/3 of America believes that Iraq was responsible for that >incident, despite the lack of evidence in that direction, despite its denial >by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Playing the victim doesn't suit >a superpower, and it certainly doesn't give you free rein to strike out at >all you hate, in absence of evidence. > A muslim terrorist is a muslim terrorist is a muslim terrorist........ Example - OBL is a muslim terrorist. His stated goal is the removal of non-muslims from 'muslim ground'. This means Israelis from Israel, Americans from Saudi, etc... Anyway, you can see that he is a common enemy to the USA and Israel. Example - Hamas and Hezbollah have vowed to attack US forces in the gulf region. You can see that the anti-Israeli terrorists are AGAIN anti-American also. Nobody believes Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11. I did not say that. YOU did. Talk about a straw man. But, since you asked, Saddam Hussein used to send 25k to the families of suicide bombers for terror groups operating in Israel. So, Saddam DEFINITELY supports terrorism. Is it terrorism aimed at the USA? Well, they say they are. Why should we doubt them? btw - there have been several Americans killed by bombers in Israel. So, we have Saddam Hussein sending 25k to families of terrorists who kill Americans abroad. Hmm.... Sounds like he is involved in anti-American terrorism to me. > >>> Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur >>> against the injustices. >> >> Don't know what Europe you are talking about. They tend to despise >> Israel, and are very open about it. > >The UK (as judged by the BBC, a notably centrist news source) doesn't like >what's going on, but isn't too sympathetic towards the Israelis, who after >all are killing ten Palestinians for every one of their dead. Probably due >to the fact that Israel civilians (and not just the easily transferred >military) are occupying Palestinian land. > BBC is notably centrist? Maybe for Europe, I guess. Anyway, again, so the ratio is 10 to 1. So what? It's not a soccer game. Fairness is not the issue. > >>> Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, >>> the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which >>> saw some damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in >>> particular. >> >> And stragely, it is the Muslim world that flew jets into the WTC. Odd, >> isn't it. The christians are supposedly on a crusade. When is the last >> time a christian blew up a bus full of muslims? > >The Iraq war? From what I've heard, your boys were pretty trigger-happy. > Actually, they were amazingly restrained. Yes, accidents did happen. They always will in a war. > >> This is where the >> constant disinformation comes in. They do not get the truth of things. >> They get state controlled horseshit information. What is REALLY funny, >> is that people like Mark Evans come along, read the same crap from the >> same sources, and say things like "What about the 1000 Israelis who >> were late to work at the WTC?". At least the Palestinians and many >> other Arabs are duped their entire lives, kind of a bainwashing thing. >> Mark Evans and his ilk are just gullible fools. Pure and simple. > >I've not seen anyone remotely sensible giving that kind of rumour credence. >I base my opinions on information which can be cross-referenced via reliable >news sources. > Mark Evans does. And that is just the tip of the iceberg! Good to know you are not THAT nutty! > >>> There are other factors in the Christian-Muslim stand-off, such as >>> the oppression of the populace by western-backed dictators and the >>> overwhelming economic and military superiority of the Christian >>> world. >> >> That is our problem why??? Capitalists will always have more. Period. >> They (and you) should try it instead of knocking it. The whole >> dictatorship thing or communist thing does not generally tend to >> create wealth for the masses. > >That's a cause. That's not our problem. Well, not the wealth part anyway. >What is our problem is our habit of installing and backing governments that >are disliked by the majority of their population. Dictators such as Saddam >Hussein. Regimes such as the Sauds. Who tend to use military provided by >the west to repress any opposition. Remember the Shi-ites after GWI? Or >the Kurds in the 80s? And Donald is now saying that there will be no >theocracy in Iraq. Even if the majority of the population desire it to be >so? > > Remember that guy named Diem (was it Diem?) in Vietnam in the 60's? Don't forget that. Yes, mistakes have been made. Unfortunately, it is hard to just say "whoops" and go away. >>> However, show the >>> world that international treaties matter by forcing Israel to keep >>> its promises, and you'll have removed the most blatant cause of >>> resentment in the mix. >> >> Stop the damn terrorism, and Israel might have a CHANCE to keep their >> promises. They are not going to keep their promises, when time and >> time again the opportunity is used for further terrorism. A couple >> dozen Israelis killed on a bus, or at a passover dinner or something, >> seems piddly to you. But they sure don't like it. I don't blame them. > >IIRC, Israel started its campaign of settlement building before any suicide >bombers appeared. That was when the treaty was first broken. The treaty was broken when the Hamas bombings didn't stop. Technically, Arafat did not control Hamas. Convenient, wasn't it? The terror attacks continue, and Arafat could claim nothing to do with it. Again, 260 Israelis killed between 1993 and 1998. Like I said earlier, there has been turmoil in the region since 1948. A few peaceful periods here and there. Too many are just unhappy about the creation of Israel at all for peace to last. To be honest, Arafat probably could NOT stop the attacks if he wanted to. His refusal to make any effort to stop it though was the icing on the cake. > >> Further, even if a deal is made with the PA, will that same deal apply >> to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.......... >> >> It is an ugly situation. > >AFAIK, Egypt and Jordan have peace deals with Israel, and Syria was looking >to sign one. Given Israel's recent record of treaty-breaking, is there any >moral reason (other than threat of force) why they should keep their side of >the bargain? > Why would Israel honor treaties with (some of) them? At least until they stop harboring anti-Israeli terrorists, for starters. And no, I am not saying this because of the recent noise surrounding Syria. I have ALWAYS wondered why Israel does not deal with Syria. Pressure from the USA, I guess. Every time that head Hamas guy speaks from his "secret headquarters in Damascus Syria", I wonder about that. Same deal with Lebanon and all the training camps. Anyway, to answer your question, they should honor treaties for 2 reasons: 1 - Israel has not attacked then unprovoked in the past. Why would they now? 2 - Last time ALL the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel at once, they were humiliated in six days (1967). It would probably take three now. > >>> Of course, a further step will be to keep those agreements >>> yourself, but then we can't ask for everything in one go. >> >> No more jets crashing into skyscrapers would make us alot more likely >> to give a damn. > >I seem to remember the Kyoto agreement, START (Mk whatever), and various >other agreements being broken before 11th September 2001. And now it seems >that you're back on the trail of building new nuclear weapons. For heck's >sake, you're the world's only superpower with the largest arsenal of nucelar >weaponry on earth. Why do you need any more WMDs? > > The Kyoto agreement was NOT broken. It was never signed to begin with. The old nuclear agreement was with the USSR. They are no more. As such the treaty no longer applies. I don't know why we need more nukes. I don't think we are building more. We just refuse to hold ourselves to a treaty with a non-existent entity. That would be silly. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 13:12:17-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:35:51 +0100, Mark Evans said: > ><IRONY> >In which case the BBC *must* be biased, since "impartial" (i.e. American) >media sources show that Israel is the victim, Israel always has been >the victim and Israel always will be the victim. Whatever the "Arab loving >anti-Semites" might want to claim in their "vile proparganda" ></IRONY> > Yes, I mean after all, the media in the USA did not even mention the 1000 Israeli citizens who were all late to the WTC on 9/11. Apparently, they ALL knew what was going to happen. There was a memo or something. Maybe it was from Ariel Sharon himself!! > >How about the "exchange rate" between Israeli solders and unarmed US and >British citizens... > Oh yes. Of course. We musn't forget the Israeli commando on one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 who was shot by hijackers armed only with box knives. Wouldn't want to do that now, would we? And lets not forget that woman at that airport in NYC who was in possession of a chemical substance to be used for terrorist puroposes. When the police were about to apprehend her, she flashed an Israeli passport, and was on her way. Apparently, even the police officers in the USA have orders not to interfere with Israeli terrorism. The plot deepens!!!! It's been fun. But I am through with you until you address the above claims, which are but a FEW of your wackier theories. They are archived on Goolge for all to see, so no sense denying you made them. I will only dig them up and post them again. You make crazy claims like that, and then duck and run away, NEVER to address them again. It SERIOUSLY hurts your credibility. At least Yak and Paul are not complete nutcases driven only by hatred. I cannot say the same about you. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 14:12:38+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:vvujavc8i5484ruii8r8oif1boch0vl27k@4ax.com: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >>Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by >>Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land >>does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into >>urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of >>Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the >>exchange rate for a Christian? >> > Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing to > do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course they > are more successful at killing terrorists. They're more successful at killing *people*. Surely you're not suggesting that car bombs, air raids and indiscriminate shelling only kills terrorists... does sending tanks into, or orchestrating air strikes on, residential areas seem a considered response to terrorism? How about bulldozing entire houses either to get at one person who may be inside, or as an act of retaliation against a bomber's family? >>> Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end >>> the conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always >>> refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all >>> settlements beyond the green line. >> >>I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that >>all further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli >>territory to be included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, >>and the building has gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Given the >>political price to be paid, and his past track record, I find the deal >>that you mention to be highly improbable. Are you sure that it was >>sanctioned by the PM? I know that Peres has had his hands rapped on >>one occasion for going beyond his portfolio. >> > It was the Camp David summit in July of 2000. Bill Clinton was the > arbiter. It was between Ehud Barak and Arafat. Google it. It's real. This summit? From The Washington Post: "In an upcoming article in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley, Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, disputes the widespread view that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was the sole culprit behind the collapse of the Camp David talks, which was soon followed by a surge in Middle East violence. The authors say Barak helped set the stage for failure by refusing to carry out some earlier agreements with the Palestinians, including a commitment to turn over West Bank land, expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and then pushing Arafat to reach an all-or- nothing peace deal. That fed Arafat's suspicions of Israeli motives, reinforcing his reluctance to clinch a permanent agreement, so he spent the summit trying to avoid a trap rather than seeking peace, according to the article in the Aug. 9 issue. Clinton shared some of Arafat's aggravation over what they both saw as Israel's failure to keep its commitments, the authors say. When Barak reneged on a vow to transfer three villages in the Jerusalem area to Palestinian control, a commitment Clinton personally conveyed to Arafat, the president was "furious." The article quotes Clinton as saying that never before had he been made out to be "a false prophet" to a foreign leader. Malley also recounts an "extraordinary moment" at Camp David when Clinton vented his accumulated frustrations after Barak retracted some negotiating positions. The article quotes Clinton as telling Barak: "I can't go see Arafat with a retrenchment! . . . This is not real. This is not serious." Clinton then chided the Israeli leader for failing to be forthcoming in earlier negotiations with the Syrians. Clinton said that for a meeting with Syrian President Hafez Assad, "I went to Geneva and felt like a wooden Indian doing your bidding. I will not let it happen here." At the close of Camp David, a frustrated Clinton blamed Arafat for missing a chance for a historic deal, breaking a pledge to the Palestinian leader that he would not be faulted if the summit failed. Though Arafat in the weeks before the summit had been looking for the Israelis to carry out their interim agreements before taking up a permanent settlement, he had agreed to go to Camp David on several conditions. One was that he would not be blamed for the possible failure of what he believed was a premature summit. Malley and Agha say Clinton volunteered that the United States would remain neutral in the case of a failure. Yet when the talks collapsed, Clinton put top priority on helping Barak, whose considerable concessions had undercut his political standing at home."

2003-04-26 14:35:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:33:27 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> There is a country >>> that withdrew from the League of Nations (dismissing it as >>> irrelevant), invaded my homeland (on a pretext which was later shown >>> to be false), killed 15 million of my people, and yet refuses to >>> admit its wrongdoings. Is the US going to address this (and not by >>> referring to an imaginary 150 year alliance with said country)? Is >>> the US going to provide aid for my people as it currently does for >>> Israel? And if you do not categorically condemn the Japanese, does >>> this make you an anti-Chinese bigot? >> >> Well, for starters, China is a communist country now. The USA is not >> known to be on the freindliest terms with communist countries. If you >> want aid of the sort Israel gets (which is WAY overstated by many), >> you will probably need to change this first. I am not being mean, just >> realistic. > I wouldn't say that China is in any recognisable way Communist. Just about > all the countries in the EU (including the UK) are more socialist in > substance. From what I've read, China is more a rural semi-economy > subsidised (in the traditional way) by an ultra-capitalist facade in the > cities. However, the knee-jerk antagonism towards Communism is, anyway, > stupid. Vietnam is probably the best known example of a country which was > pushed towards the USSR by a US fear that it may turn Communist. Vietnam initially courted the US, only turning to the USSR after the US rebuffed them. Ironically since all that Ho Chi Minh wanted was the French colonials out of his country the US would probably have been eager to help if they had the current political climate 50 or so years ago. >>> I dunno about you, but my parents lived under occupation, but are >>> also willing to see it as part of a wider history. I don't begrudge >>> the Japanese their success, but am irritated whenever people point >>> to the Holocaust as something which grants Israel the right to do >>> whatever it wants, labelling protesters as 'anti-semitic' and >>> bracketing them with the Nazis. IMO, to do so is to trivialise the >>> original, to insult those who suffered through the real thing. >>> >> >> I do NOT believe that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants. I >> ALSO do not believe that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks in NYC, as >> does Mr. Evans. > Admittedly, I came late into this seemingly lengthy feud between yourself > and Evans. But I've not seen this, nor your other claims (see below) in his > posts. Like most biggots, Stimpson J. Cat, is not interested in letting facts get in the way. Or for that matter even logic. Insisting on making the nonsensical claims that anything critial of any Israeli citizens, the Israeli Government or Israel's supporters/appologists is against "Jews" (a group of people which includes some of the most anti-Israel/anti-Zionist people on the planet as well as many people who couldn't care one way or the other about Israel). Just a slightly more involved version of the "logic" that saying anything against a woman *must* be because of sexism or saying anthing against a black person *must* be because of racism. Since as a member of an "opressed minority(tm)" these people are either absolutly perfect or subject to different standards from everyone else. Interestingly not too many people fall for Robert Mugabe playing this kind of "get out of jail free" card. Of course trying to confuse Jews and Israelis just happens to work to the advantage of Zionists if it leads to the innocent being blamed for the actions of the guilty. Where the circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11 points to Saudi Arabia, Germany, the US, even the US there dosn't appear to be any kind of big fuss. But it just isn't politically correct that there can be anything against Israeli citizens or the Israeli state. All the fuss also misses the point that it is itself strange that the US government is prepared to jail US citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts. Yet consider a subset of non US citizens utterly above suspicion. >> The holocaust is irrelevant to the discussion. I >> questioned Mr. Evans about it, because most kooks like him deny that >> it occured. It was a means to identify a bigot. Period. Yes, I am >> pro-Israel. Not because of the holocaust. I support them becuase they >> are in a fight for survival against the vicous cancer that is Islamic >> terrorism. Having had our own little bout of that disease here in the >> USA, I can relate. > Some of us reckon that the best way to end the inter-tribal squabbling would Using terms like "vicous cancer" is hardly likely to help matters. > be for the various sides to keep their promises. Unfortunately, all the > news sources that I've seen and read say that the Israelis are usually the > first to provoke a reaction, which is met by a massive counter-reaction > entirely out of proportion to the threat. IIRC, ten times as many > Palestinians are being killed as are Israelis. Also note that the current > intifada was prefaced by then minister Ariel Sharon's controversial (and > highly provocative) visit to some hill or other in Jerusalem. Consider that also he is very pro "settlements", which certainly cannot do anything other than make matters worst. The "cancer" analogy actually works even better applied to Israel here. >>>> When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to >>>> Israel. NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To >>>> him, jews >>>> are behind all of the problems in the world. >>> >>> It's a fair comment to say that the Jewish portion of the population >>> of Israel is behind a fair proportion of the world's problems. >>> >> >> Not really. It is more accurate to say that fanatical islamic >> terrorists who target Israel are the problem. The Israelis are the >> problem in that they exist. It is the muslims who wish to make them >> cease to exist. The muslim terrorists are the aggressors. Hence, they >> are the source of the problem. > And the Israeli state which keeps invading and occupying the Palestinian Which is the way Israel actually came into existance in the first place. The Zionists were killing and driving out Arabs long before there was a country called "Israel". > state is not a problem? Note that for every Israeli death in this intifada, > there are ten Palestinian deaths. From where I'm sitting (in the UK > watching BBC news) it looks like the Israelis who have the wherewithal to be > the aggressors. <IRONY> In which case the BBC *must* be biased, since "impartial" (i.e. American) media sources show that Israel is the victim, Israel always has been the victim and Israel always will be the victim. Whatever the "Arab loving anti-Semites" might want to claim in their "vile proparganda" </IRONY> >>> Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating >>> against the Muslim portion. >> >> Because some among the muslim portion keep blowing themselves up on >> buses. If they quit doing this, maybe the others would be treated >> better. Suicide bombing does not make freinds. Period. > Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by Ariel > Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land does not make > friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into urban areas does not > make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians. > Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the exchange rate for a Christian? How about the "exchange rate" between Israeli solders and unarmed US and British citizens... Anyway this isn't about "Jews" (many of whom are against occupation, war, even Israel) and Muslims (Palestinians arn't exclusivly Muslim). It's between Zionists, a group of people who came into existance in Europe in the late 19th century and decided that a piece of land belonged to them. And the Palestinians, the people who were living on the land the Zionists wanted. The core of the conflict is nothing to do with religion, it's that a well armed group of Europeans attacked Arabs and drove them off their land. Then continue to kill these same Arabs and take their land. To confuse the issue the Zionists claim to represent *all* Jews. Even when some Rabbis argue that Judaism and Zionism are mutually exclusive. Nor do all Zionists claim to be Jewish, for at least some of the "Christion Zionists" there are some very anti-Jewish beliefs involved. >>> Israel refuses to keep its side of the Oslo agreement, >>> encouraging Jewish settlers to populate land that has been ceded to >>> the Palestinian authorities. Faced with constant discrimination, >>> illegal reduction of their land and military attacks, the >>> Palestinians and Israeli Arabs gain the sympathy of Muslims in the >>> region. With their support, they mount terrorist attacks on Israel >>> in an attempt to do something, anything, to alleviate their feeling >>> of helplessness. >> >> At one time, I would have said that some of the above complaints are >> valid. But do you know what? Nobody cares anymore. When the world sees >> people celebrating the fact that their children blew up themselves and >> many others on a bus, it does not exactly garner sympathy for their >> plight. We only see frenzied terrorists who are barely recognizable as >> human. After 9/11, which was done to some degree on behalf of the >> Palestinians, good luck getting widespread support for Pals in the >> USA. There is SOME support. So anybody reading this who supports the >> Palestinian cause, saying "Hey, I live in the USA!", I know this. I am >> just saying you are the minority here. Especially after 9/11. To be >> honest, before 9/11, the mideast turmoil was distant to most. Now, >> alot of people pay more attention. > In the minority? The IRA, which was heavily supported by Irish expats in > the US, didn't make friends in the UK by blowing up civilians. However, The US authorities didn't show much interest in doing anything about support for the IRA in the US. Even with the close political and diplomatic relationship between the two countries. > after the Madwoman was gone, the UK government recognised that terrorism was > a political problem, best solved by political engagement. The French and > Spanish have had their own problems with Algeria and Catalan nationalists, > not to mention Russia and Chechnya. Perhaps Spain is a bad example, but in > the other cases, terrorism was dealt with by eliminating its source, the > political will that keeps the cause alive. In the words of then Shadow Home Also simply tossing bombs at places the "terrorists" might be dosn't do much good. If anything it works as a recruitment campaign to show that the "terrorists" are fighting an oppressive enemy who cares little for human life. > Secretary Tony Blair, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". > Terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001. Many of us have lived with "Terrorism" is as old as warfare. Which is one of the ways in which a "war on terrorism" is an oxymoron. What we now refer to as "terrorism" is a set of techniques for fighting war against a larger or better armed opponent with some possibility of victory. > it for as long as we can remember, and were seeing an end to it (after years > of painful learning), only for that to crop up. Islamic fundamentalism is > no more a threat to me that Irish republicanism. But eliminating it will > surely require the same mindset. History suggests so. Which is why it's so > irritating to see the Israelis and Americans making the same mistakes that > we did. They appear to be making even bigger versions of similar mistakes. The RAF never bombed Belfast... >> Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end the >> conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always >> refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all >> settlements beyond the green line. > I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that all > further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli territory to be > included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, and the building has > gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Given the political price to be > paid, and his past track record, I find the deal that you mention to be > highly improbable. Are you sure that it was sanctioned by the PM? I know > that Peres has had his hands rapped on one occasion for going beyond his > portfolio. >> Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort >> to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide >> bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. >> The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That >> one ain't gonna happen. > Err, the PLO signed a treaty (brokered by the US) that established peace. > The Israeli signatory was assassinated, and his successor unilaterally He wasn't killed by a Palestinian though an Israeli terrorist shot him. > repudiated the treaty (an illegal act). Even if Israel stops building now, > and refrains from sending its military into Palestinian towns, it would > still be in material breach of the treaty. It would remain so until Israel > hands over authority over the land to the Palestine, or until the PLO sign a Also Israel asks the impossible of the PA, that they stop *all* attacks. At the same time killing Palestinian security forces and destroying Palestinian jails. > new treaty. Given that this is effectively an invasion, it's quite > understandable (if regrettable) that the Palestinian people would use > whatever means were available to retaliate. The combination of British and Irish security forces could not eliminate Loyalist and Republican terrorists operating in Northern Ireland. Israeli security forces are unable to eliminate Israeli terrorists. Yet the PA is expected to stop all attacks on Israel, including those backed by people they have no control over and their political opponents, with the minimum of resources... >>> Israel hits back with ever >>> increasing force, which provokes further extremism. >> >> It is a fight for survival. What are they supposed to do? However much >> you object to the formation of Israel in 1948, it should be clear by >> now that they are not leaving. It is about as likely to happen as the >> USA disbanding and turning over the land to the natives. Sounds good >> in PC circles, but it will never happen. Even the liberals won't do >> it. > Straw man, straw man. A peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians > *was* negotiated, and recognised by all sides in the region, which didn't > require the Israelis to leave the region. However, Israel broke the peace > by claiming authority over land that by treaty belongs to Palestine. > Perhaps it's gone too far by now to allow for a clean peace. But any peace, > dirty or clean, must be based on the Oslo agreement. Also required is a neutral party. The USA cannot be this simply because they are too close to one of the parties in the dispute. It also makes sense that any lasting peace must take into account the various relevent UN resolutions. >>> The implicit support of >>> the world's only superpower gives Israel the power to do anything it >>> likes. >> >> Hence 9/11. They sure got our attention. Probably misgaged the >> response, though. > WTF does that have to do with Palestine? And the support dates back long > before 2001. >> btw - Tell me again how flying jets into our skyscrapers was supposed >> to get sympathy for the cause? > Were there any Palestinians in the crews? Were there any Iraqis in the > crews? Most of us in the UK can't believe what we're hearing, but It's probably safe to subsitute "world" for "UK". > apparently 2/3 of America believes that Iraq was responsible for that > incident, despite the lack of evidence in that direction, despite its denial No evidence at all connecting Iraq to either 9/11 or the Anthrax mailings. Just a general lack of investigation and some evidence leading in directions which the US authorities apparently do not want to go. > by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Playing the victim doesn't suit > a superpower, and it certainly doesn't give you free rein to strike out at > all you hate, in absence of evidence. >>> Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur >>> against the injustices. >> >> Don't know what Europe you are talking about. They tend to despise >> Israel, and are very open about it. > The UK (as judged by the BBC, a notably centrist news source) doesn't like > what's going on, but isn't too sympathetic towards the Israelis, who after Killing unarmed Americans and Britons dosn't do much to encourage sympathy either. > all are killing ten Palestinians for every one of their dead. Probably due > to the fact that Israel civilians (and not just the easily transferred Quite a few of the "settlers" appear very well armed... Also some of the "settlements" are more "trailer parks" than anything else. Were the political will there it probably wouldn't be too difficult for Israel to get all of its citizens currently in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Hights inside its 1967 borders. > military) are occupying Palestinian land. There are plenty of people in mainland Europe who know exactly what living under occupation involves. Either by personal experience or through asking parents/grandparents. >>> Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, >>> the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which >>> saw some damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in >>> particular. >> >> And stragely, it is the Muslim world that flew jets into the WTC. Odd, >> isn't it. The christians are supposedly on a crusade. When is the last >> time a christian blew up a bus full of muslims? > The Iraq war? From what I've heard, your boys were pretty trigger-happy. The Americans have been notorious for shooting at anything and everything for a long time. An old joke goes: "When the Germans fly over the British duck, when the British fly over the Germans duck, when the Americans fly over *everybody* ducks."

2003-04-26 17:40:09-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <o6djavc2s6dqfvstelcfc07hpq4oljl9rf@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: >>Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on >>Saudi soil >Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. >Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many >more..... ...Timorese from East Timor. Spaniards from Spain. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-26 17:49:50+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 26 Apr 2003 14:12:38 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >news:vvujavc8i5484ruii8r8oif1boch0vl27k@4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>>Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by >>>Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land >>>does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into >>>urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of >>>Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the >>>exchange rate for a Christian? >>> >> Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing to >> do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course they >> are more successful at killing terrorists. > >They're more successful at killing *people*. Surely you're not >suggesting that car bombs, air raids and indiscriminate shelling only >kills terrorists... does sending tanks into, or orchestrating air >strikes on, residential areas seem a considered response to terrorism? >How about bulldozing entire houses either to get at one person who may be >inside, or as an act of retaliation against a bomber's family? > Killing people is what the military does. This is cold and brutal, to say the least. But it is a fact. As for the indiscriminate killing, Israel is largely successful at avoiding civilian casualties. They do happen, primarily because the terrorists that they seek hide among the general population (or more accurately, they ARE among the general population). All things considered, Israel does pretty well in this regard. To be perfect every time is not possible. As for the bulldozing of the bombers house: Yes, this is an EXCELLENT policy. Becoming a suicide bomber is a family decision. This policy has led to a major reduction in the rate of bombings in Israel. Don't worry too much, though, the families get generous donations (all though 25k LESS than they used to) from Saudis and others. A question for you: What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE that Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your motivations. You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few civilians in a RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a Palestinian bomber deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. Can you say "hypocrisy"? > > >This summit? From The Washington Post: > Should read,

2003-04-26 17:54:09-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose >of regime change? Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, >as is every other member? Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the extent a greater power forces it to be. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-26 18:27:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <nieporen-55DDFF.17540926042003@news.fu-berlin.de>, nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > > >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." > > >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, > >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose > >of regime change? > > Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the > area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. Um, why? Iraq has not attacked anyone since then. The area was, in fact, at peace, and fairly secure. > >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, > >as is every other member? > > Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign > state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the > extent a greater power forces it to be. Of course. Now the question arises: Why should anyone keep treaties with the US?

2003-04-26 18:31:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8ctn4$7blk2$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The holocaust is irrelevant to the discussion. I >> questioned Mr. Evans about it, because most kooks like him deny that >> it occured. It was a means to identify a bigot. Period. Yes, I am >> pro-Israel. Not because of the holocaust. I support them becuase they >> are in a fight for survival against the vicous cancer that is Islamic >> terrorism. Having had our own little bout of that disease here in the >> USA, I can relate. >Some of us reckon that the best way to end the inter-tribal squabbling would >be for the various sides to keep their promises. Unfortunately, all the >news sources that I've seen and read say that the Israelis are usually the >first to provoke a reaction, which is met by a massive counter-reaction >entirely out of proportion to the threat. IIRC, ten times as many >Palestinians are being killed as are Israelis. You don't RC. >Also note that the current >intifada was prefaced by then minister Ariel Sharon's controversial (and >highly provocative) visit to some hill or other in Jerusalem. False. The current intifada was planned by the PLO to put pressure on Israel. Sharon had nothing to do with it, as the PLO has said several times. (Of course, the entire premise, if true, would just show the situation Israel faces: Sharon walks around, and in response Palestinians start killing people.) >>>> When he sneers "a certain country" , he is ALWAYS referring to >>>> Israel. NOT Saudi Arabia. NOT Japan. NOT Russia. ALWAYS Israel. To >>>> him, jews are behind all of the problems in the world. >>> It's a fair comment to say that the Jewish portion of the population >>> of Israel is behind a fair proportion of the world's problems. >> Not really. It is more accurate to say that fanatical islamic >> terrorists who target Israel are the problem. The Israelis are the >> problem in that they exist. It is the muslims who wish to make them >> cease to exist. The muslim terrorists are the aggressors. Hence, they >> are the source of the problem. >And the Israeli state which keeps invading and occupying the Palestinian >state is not a problem? There is no Palestinian state. > Note that for every Israeli death in this intifada, >there are ten Palestinian deaths. False. > From where I'm sitting (in the UK >watching BBC news) it looks like the Israelis who have the wherewithal to be >the aggressors. Well, there you go. Stop watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Company. Read a slightly less biased source. >>> Israel refuses to treat its population equally, discriminating >>> against the Muslim portion. >> Because some among the muslim portion keep blowing themselves up on >> buses. If they quit doing this, maybe the others would be treated >> better. Suicide bombing does not make freinds. Period. >Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by Ariel >Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land does not make >friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into urban areas does not >make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians. No, don't. For one thing, you're making up the numbers. For another, "kill ratios" are irrelevant; more Germans died than Americans in WW2, but that certainly doesn't mean that Germany is the side with the grievance. For a third, if one was going to look at deaths, one should look at innocent deaths, not combatant deaths. And most Palestinian deaths are combatant deaths; most Israel deaths are civilian deaths. >> Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end the >> conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always >> refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all >> settlements beyond the green line. >I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that all >further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli territory to be >included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, and the building has >gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Netanyahu wasn't the prime minister before Sharon. Barak was. >> Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort >> to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide >> bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. >> The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That >> one ain't gonna happen. >Err, the PLO signed a treaty (brokered by the US) that established peace. No. Peace treaties do not "establish" peace. They're just pieces of paper. Why don't Europeans understand the difference between paper and reality? >The Israeli signatory was assassinated, and his successor unilaterally >repudiated the treaty (an illegal act). 1) Please stop throwing around the world illegal. Laws establish legality. There are no relevant laws here. 2) Oslo wasn't a peace treaty. It was a framework for negotiations. 3) Netanyahu didn't repudiate anything. 4) Certainly nothing "unilateral" was done. Palestinians never implemented any of their promises. >Even if Israel stops building now, >and refrains from sending its military into Palestinian towns, it would >still be in material breach of the treaty. It would remain so until Israel >hands over authority over the land to the Palestine, Israel did. That's why, when Israel sent tanks into WB towns (most prominently Jenin) last year after a particularly egregious round of Palestinian terror, people kept calling it a "reoccupation." >or until the PLO sign a >new treaty. Given that this is effectively an invasion, it's quite >understandable (if regrettable) that the Palestinian people would use >whatever means were available to retaliate. You can't "invade" your own territory. There is no Palestinian state. The "reoccupation" occured after a huge round of terrorist attacks, including the Netanya Passover bombing. >>> Israel hits back with ever >>> increasing force, which provokes further extremism. >> It is a fight for survival. What are they supposed to do? However much >> you object to the formation of Israel in 1948, it should be clear by >> now that they are not leaving. It is about as likely to happen as the >> USA disbanding and turning over the land to the natives. Sounds good >> in PC circles, but it will never happen. Even the liberals won't do >> it. >Straw man, straw man. A peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians >*was* negotiated, No. A piece of paper was negotiated. That's not peace. > and recognised by all sides in the region, which didn't >require the Israelis to leave the region. However, Israel broke the peace >by claiming authority over land that by treaty belongs to Palestine. False. Israel didn't "claim authority over" anything. And there is no "Palestine." >Perhaps it's gone too far by now to allow for a clean peace. But any peace, >dirty or clean, must be based on the Oslo agreement. No, it must be based on a commitment to peace. There is no such commitment on the Palestinian side; the only issue on that side is whether to establish a Palestinian state and *then* destroy Israel, or to just destroy Israel directly. >>> Unwilling to upset the US, Europe raises little more than a murmur >>> against the injustices. >> Don't know what Europe you are talking about. They tend to despise >> Israel, and are very open about it. >The UK (as judged by the BBC, a notably centrist news source) HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one. The far-left BBC is "centrist." Right. The Daily Telegraph, or the Times. Those are centrist. doesn't like >what's going on, but isn't too sympathetic towards the Israelis, who after >all are killing ten Palestinians for every one of their dead. Probably due >to the fact that Israel civilians (and not just the easily transferred >military) are occupying Palestinian land. There is no "Palestinian land." There is no Palestinian state. There has never been a Palestinian state. There is only "land that will be Palestinian once Palestinians stop attacking Israel." >>> Seeing the Christian world seemingly arrayed against them, >>> the Muslim world understandably sees echoes of the Crusades, which >>> saw some damnably poor behaviour from the Christian side in >>> particular. >> And stragely, it is the Muslim world that flew jets into the WTC. Odd, >> isn't it. The christians are supposedly on a crusade. When is the last >> time a christian blew up a bus full of muslims? >The Iraq war? From what I've heard, your boys were pretty trigger-happy. Where did you hear that? The "centrist" BBC, that was so biased that British forces in the Gulf had it replaced as their news source because they were so disgusted with its bias? The same source that the BBC's own correspondent in the Gulf criticized for biased coverage? >>> However, show the >>> world that international treaties matter by forcing Israel to keep >>> its promises, and you'll have removed the most blatant cause of >>> resentment in the mix. >> Stop the damn terrorism, and Israel might have a CHANCE to keep their >> promises. They are not going to keep their promises, when time and >> time again the opportunity is used for further terrorism. A couple >> dozen Israelis killed on a bus, or at a passover dinner or something, >> seems piddly to you. But they sure don't like it. I don't blame them. >IIRC, Israel started its campaign of settlement building before any suicide >bombers appeared. That was when the treaty was first broken. You don't RC. >> Further, even if a deal is made with the PA, will that same deal apply >> to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.......... >> It is an ugly situation. >AFAIK, Egypt and Jordan have peace deals with Israel, and Syria was looking >to sign one. Given Israel's recent record of treaty-breaking, No treaty was broken. >is there any >moral reason (other than threat of force) why they should keep their side of >the bargain? What side of the bargain? None of these groups ever agreed to stop attacking Israel. >>> Of course, a further step will be to keep those agreements >>> yourself, but then we can't ask for everything in one go. >> No more jets crashing into skyscrapers would make us alot more likely >> to give a damn. >I seem to remember the Kyoto agreement, START (Mk whatever), and various >other agreements being broken before 11th September 2001. You don't, again, remember correctly. The US never ratified Kyoto, so it couldn't "break" it. START? Do you mean the ABM treaty, which also wasn't broken? >And now it seems >that you're back on the trail of building new nuclear weapons. For heck's >sake, you're the world's only superpower with the largest arsenal of nucelar >weaponry on earth. Why do you need any more WMDs? Presumably we don't need "more," which is why we, along with Russia, agreed to reduce our stockpiles. We may want "different." --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-26 18:41:55-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 26 Apr 2003 23:26:40 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >You're joking, right? When was the last time you heard of the RAF >carrying out air strikes on Belfast? What a ludicrous statement. > You make it sound like they are leveling cities with B52's. They are not. Even their air strikes are relatively precise. Look, civilian casualties are HIGHLY unfortunate. But they are in a fight for SURVIVAL here. If they do not take out the enemy, they will die. That is their perspective. The civilian casualties tend to be GREATLY exaggerated, by the way. >> As for the bulldozing of the bombers house: >> >> Yes, this is an EXCELLENT policy. Becoming a suicide bomber is a >> family decision. This policy has led to a major reduction in the rate >> of bombings in Israel. Don't worry too much, though, the families get >> generous donations (all though 25k LESS than they used to) from Saudis >> and others. >> >> A question for you: >> >> What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus >> full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against >> civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE that >> Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your motivations. >> You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few civilians in a >> RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a Palestinian bomber >> deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. Can you say >> "hypocrisy"? > >I beg your pardon? How in the hell does my condemnation of one side of a >struggle mean that I'm pro the other side? There are atrocities on both >sides, only a fool would claim otherwise, but my point was aimed at >atrocities committed by Israel. Indeed, palestinian suicide bombing of >civillian areas is indefensible, and an act of total brutality, born out >of both desparation and cowardice. If you think I'm a terroist >sympathiser then you're very much mistaken, and I completely resent the >charge of hypocracy. I suppose your next comment is going to be an >accusation of anti-semitism? > Quite the contrary. You have risen in stature in my eyes with this paragraph! >What a nasty individual you really are. Well, again, at least you were offended. That is a definite plus! Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 18:54:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8ep6v$9bhtd$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> As for the indiscriminate killing, Israel is largely successful at >> avoiding civilian casualties. >From what I've heard, Israel is spectacularly bad at avoiding civilian >casualties. Then you need to rehear. > I've seen various estimates running as high as 90%, but a >moderate figure seems to be around 75% of casualties can be categorised as >'civilian'. Completely false. http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm >Children throwing stones at soldiers do _not_ count as >combatants. Of course they do. You make it sound as if this is like playing dodgeball in school. Rocks are lethal weapons. Stoning is still a method of execution used in large parts of the Muslim world. And whether the thrower is 16 or 20 doesn't change that. >> As for the bulldozing of the bombers house: >> Yes, this is an EXCELLENT policy. Becoming a suicide bomber is a >> family decision. This policy has led to a major reduction in the rate >> of bombings in Israel. Don't worry too much, though, the families get >> generous donations (all though 25k LESS than they used to) from Saudis >> and others. >Err, from what I've read, becoming a suicide bomber is a social, political, >and individual decision. Families try to dissuade their children from >joining such groups. When they find out that their children have blown >themselves up, they're usually quite upset. To go and knock down their >house afterwards seems a touch OTT. Where do you "read" these things you keep coming up with? Listen to the Palestinians talking about how _proud_ they are of their children for commiting acts of murder, how they wish for their younger children to grow up to be suicide bombers. How they dress their toddlers up in suicide-bomber costumes for parades. >In contrast, compare with the British method of dealing with the IRA. Since >the onset of political engagement, the rate of bombings has gone down >drastically. IIRC, there has'nt been a bomb on the mainland for over 7 >years. The IRA has scaled down all its activities, including the >non-violent (but still illegal) side. Former members are dragging the >organisation into the mainstream. The general population of NI is content, >and overwhelmingly opposed to continuing paramilitary activity. All >achieved by political means. Even to the extent that's true, the goal of the IRA wasn't to destroy the UK, so the comparison is inapt. If the UK made too many concessions to the IRA, the worst that happened was that the IRA gained some political influence in Northern Ireland; not the murder of every British citizen. >> A question for you: >> What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus >> full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against >> civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE that >> Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your motivations. >> You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few civilians in a >> RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a Palestinian bomber >> deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. Can you say "hypocrisy"? >Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian >dead. Please stop saying this. It's completely wrong. By an order of magnitude. Go look at the link I provided above. > And one of the PLO's complaints whenever Israel demands that it shuts >down the terrorist groups is that its police aren't given the powers to >enforce such a decision. It tried to do so, before the current intifada, >but the Israeli refusal to keep their side of the bargain (ending and >withdrawing settlements), not to mention their continuing harassment of the >Palestinians, meant that the police lost popular support after a few months >of one-sided treaty-keeping. I remember thinking at the time that the >Palestinians *couldn't* carry on in this farcical position. Your opinion is the farcical one. The Palestinians wouldn't arrest people when Israel demanded they do so. Or they'd arrest them and then let them out of the jails soon afterwards. They _never_ stopped attacking Israeli citizens. Israel offered the Palestinians more than 95% of the disputed territories; the PLO rejected it without even a counteroffer. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-26 18:57:41+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... > > >> From: "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> >> >> >> Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... >>> >>> > >>> And the way to make it possible for the US to pull out of Saudi is to get >>> rid of Saddam. Now there's no need for US troops to be there. and we can >>> take away at least one irritation that influences Arab public opinion >>> against the US. >>> >>> Note that Blair, at least, tied the successful removal of Saddam to a >>> so-called 'Roadmap' for re-starting the Isreali-Palestinian 'peace process' >>> -- a resolution to that trouble would, at least in theory, remove another >>> anti-western irritant in the Middle east. >>> >>> Mind you, I'm not saying that *I* think backing off on these issues will be >>> the successful way to defuse terrorism, but it looks as if *somebody* in a >>> policy making position thinks it may be *part* of the solution. >> >> Since the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and unquestioning, >> constant US support for anything the Israelis do to the Palestinians, up to >> and including calling the entire Palestinian Authority a terrorist >> organisation are the two main points causing Islamic dislike of the USA, it >> seems likely that putting an end to both could go a long way towards >> decreasing terrorism. > >It might, if in fact US troops can get out of the region altogether and if >the 'Roadmap' will lead to a peace settlement acceptable to a sufficiently >large number of Arabs. I have some doubts about both of those, though. It >will be impractical the the troops to leave Iraq foe some time, Indeed. It will take some time for the cheaply extractible oil to be exhausted, and the troops will be there, controlling the oil and the government at least until then. >and while >the Israelis have occasionally talked peace with the PA, the process has yet >to bring Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups on board (as well as some >of the more extreme groups of Israelis). By which you mean the current Israeli government and the thousands of religious fanatics willing to set up illegal (or don't you regard the Oslo agreement as legal?) settlements in land that is legally Palestinian, risking their lives and then begging for the Israeli army to protect them? This is the major point in Palestinian/Israeli problems: Israel has been moving in on land that was agreed to be Palestinian ever since the 1950s, exactly the same way that the US moved in on the Native Americans. Sign a treaty, break it, send the army to drive them out and settle the land: year after year, mile after mile, murder after murder. Now the Israelis are firing air-to-ground missiles into towns and villages to kill people they merely think might be involved in resistance, regardless of how many other people they may kill too. And the US is backing this up as being part of the "War on terrorism". Americans still wonder why Moslems show a degree of disapproval of US policies. I can't help but wonder why, until I look at the headlines in the local paper (Why is the local team losing?) or the top story in the local TV news (Why is the local team losing?): nobody cares. >> These people aren't killing themselves by wearing explosive belts and >> blowing them up or flying planes into buildings for fun, or to send a >> message that they are a tiny bit irritated because they object to >> Christianity and Capitalism, as most Americans seem to think. > >I never claimed they were. I was pointing out that removing Saddam Hussein >was an essential step in ameliorating one of the very real issues that has >fostered terrorism in Islamic countries. > >> Nor are they >> any more religiously fanatic than the Christian fundamentalists who are >> killing doctors who perform legal abortions, or trying to stop your kids >> from learning evolution because their holy book says different. I'd bet >> that one of the differences between Bush and Saddam Hussein is that Hussein >> understands and believes in Evolution and Bush doesn't. > >Some fanatics are more fanatical than other fanatics, but sorting them out >in rank order isn't very much fun and tends to warp the brain. So we ignore the US freaks and pay attention to those goddamn foreign freaks? >> And will you please try to remember that it's ISRAEL! Doesn't anyone >> remember Anwar Sadat and his pronunciation? Ever since he was assassinated, >> US newspeople have invented some imaginary place called Isreal. But it's >> ISRAEL! Either learn to pronounce it and spell it or stop yammering about >> it. >> >Since you have (to the best of my knowledge) not ever heard me pronounce (or >mispronounce) Israel, I am rather at a loss as to why you chose my post to >make this comment. Is it time for you to turn off the computer for a while? It's time for you to switch on a spell checker so your posts don't contain idiotic misspellings.

2003-04-26 19:28:36-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 27 Apr 2003 00:01:21 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >news:gs5mavohhajtikcaed2nt26asats099img@4ax.com: > > >So you would agree with my point that both sides in this 'war'are >committing heinous acts of violence against one another, or are you merely >glad I said something bad about the palestinians? Yes, both sides are committing heinous acts of violence. My entire point, though, is that Israelis operations are reactionary in nature, and are not designed to kill civilians. It does happen sometimes. The arab casualties tend to be overstated by many. Considering the dense urban settings the Israelis operate in, they could do much worse. Civilian caualties are VERY unfortunate. But what else can the Israelis do?? NOT going after the terrorist groups is NOT an option. That is death. If the s-bombings would stop, peace MIGHT have a chance. The violence has gone on for so long, though, that NOW, even if the s-bombings DID stop, it would probably take Israel a long time to react and withdrawal. Further, even if a deal IS reached with the PA, will it apply to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad, or the Al Aqsa brigade?? No, it will not. This alone makes peace VERY difficult. Those groups are pretty sincere about wanting Israel gone, and they will act independently from the PA. This is a huge problem. Honestly, I do not hold out much hope for legitimate peace in the region in my lifetime. Oh, and I will something else. Our friend Yuk Tang is right about one thing... The outpost settlers are an aggravation to the situation. They REALLY need to stop. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 19:45:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Paul Smith wrote in message ... >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >news:vvujavc8i5484ruii8r8oif1boch0vl27k@4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>>Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by >>>Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land >>>does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into >>>urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of >>>Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the >>>exchange rate for a Christian? >>> >> Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing to >> do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course they >> are more successful at killing terrorists. > >They're more successful at killing *people*. Surely you're not >suggesting that car bombs, air raids and indiscriminate shelling only >kills terrorists... does sending tanks into, or orchestrating air >strikes on, residential areas seem a considered response to terrorism? >How about bulldozing entire houses either to get at one person who may be >inside, or as an act of retaliation against a bomber's family? > > >>>> Add to this the fact that Israel has made VERY real efforts to end >>>> the conflict in a reasonable way, and the PA, led by Arafat, always >>>> refuses. One deal even included the immediate dismantling of all >>>> settlements beyond the green line. >>> >>>I've not heard of that. I've heard of one third-party proposal that >>>all further settlement to be stopped, and the de facto Israeli >>>territory to be included in Israel. That was rejected by Netanyahu, >>>and the building has gone on at a faster pace under Sharon. Given the >>>political price to be paid, and his past track record, I find the deal >>>that you mention to be highly improbable. Are you sure that it was >>>sanctioned by the PM? I know that Peres has had his hands rapped on >>>one occasion for going beyond his portfolio. >>> >> It was the Camp David summit in July of 2000. Bill Clinton was the >> arbiter. It was between Ehud Barak and Arafat. Google it. It's real. > >This summit? From The Washington Post: > >"In an upcoming article in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley, >Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, disputes the >widespread view that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was the sole >culprit behind the collapse of the Camp David talks, which was soon >followed by a surge in Middle East violence. > >The authors say Barak helped set the stage for failure by refusing to >carry out some earlier agreements with the Palestinians, including a >commitment to turn over West Bank land, expanding Jewish settlements in >the occupied territories and then pushing Arafat to reach an all-or- >nothing peace deal. That fed Arafat's suspicions of Israeli motives, >reinforcing his reluctance to clinch a permanent agreement, so he spent >the summit trying to avoid a trap rather than seeking peace, according to >the article in the Aug. 9 issue. > >Clinton shared some of Arafat's aggravation over what they both saw as >Israel's failure to keep its commitments, the authors say. When Barak >reneged on a vow to transfer three villages in the Jerusalem area to >Palestinian control, a commitment Clinton personally conveyed to Arafat, >the president was "furious." The article quotes Clinton as saying that >never before had he been made out to be "a false prophet" to a foreign >leader. > >Malley also recounts an "extraordinary moment" at Camp David when Clinton >vented his accumulated frustrations after Barak retracted some >negotiating positions. The article quotes Clinton as telling Barak: "I >can't go see Arafat with a retrenchment! . . . This is not real. This is >not serious." Clinton then chided the Israeli leader for failing to be >forthcoming in earlier negotiations with the Syrians. Clinton said that >for a meeting with Syrian President Hafez Assad, "I went to Geneva and >felt like a wooden Indian doing your bidding. I will not let it happen >here." > >At the close of Camp David, a frustrated Clinton blamed Arafat for >missing a chance for a historic deal, breaking a pledge to the >Palestinian leader that he would not be faulted if the summit failed. > >Though Arafat in the weeks before the summit had been looking for the >Israelis to carry out their interim agreements before taking up a >permanent settlement, he had agreed to go to Camp David on several >conditions. One was that he would not be blamed for the possible failure >of what he believed was a premature summit. Malley and Agha say Clinton >volunteered that the United States would remain neutral in the case of a >failure. > >Yet when the talks collapsed, Clinton put top priority on helping Barak, >whose considerable concessions had undercut his political standing at >home." This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). But it's irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that says "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial cleansing, genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" has been reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere collateral damage.

2003-04-26 19:58:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:32:46 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> In article <b8ep6v$9bhtd$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, >> >> Even to the extent that's true, the goal of the IRA wasn't to destroy >> the UK, so the comparison is inapt. If the UK made too many >> concessions to the IRA, the worst that happened was that the IRA >> gained some political influence in Northern Ireland; not the murder >> of every British citizen. > >It's the stated goal of the IRA to expel the British from the island of >Ireland and integrate it into a single republic. Look up what 'Sinn Fein' >means. Why did you make a completely different argument as if that answers what he wrote? The IRA's goal is not the destruction of the UK. That IS the stated goal of the PLO and many other arabs. You don't find that a huge difference? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-26 21:11:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: In article <b8ep6v$9bhtd$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm > >>Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian >>dead. > >Please stop saying this. It's completely wrong. By an order of magnitude. >Go look at the link I provided above. > I know I have a lot to learn about all this, but I'm not going to put my faith in a set of Israeli statistics on this, anymore than I would base my opinions solely on a Palestinian site. Got something more objective to point to? -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-26 21:15:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with regard to Iraq, maybe it will be similarly so for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- figured I'd post the link before I finished wading through it. Looks like a primer on the subject: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/isrlindx.htm -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-26 21:18:00+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > As for the indiscriminate killing, Israel is largely successful at > avoiding civilian casualties.

2003-04-26 23:10:21+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in > news:vvujavc8i5484ruii8r8oif1boch0vl27k@4ax.com: >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>>Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by >>>Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land >>>does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into >>>urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio of >>>Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the >>>exchange rate for a Christian? >>> >> Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing to >> do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course they >> are more successful at killing terrorists. > They're more successful at killing *people*. Surely you're not > suggesting that car bombs, air raids and indiscriminate shelling only > kills terrorists... does sending tanks into, or orchestrating air Even if it does manage to kill "terrorists" it's very likely to encourage some of the people being bombed, shelled and shot at to "strike back". But since they don't have any bombers or artillary pieces the only way they can retaliate is by being "terrorists"... > strikes on, residential areas seem a considered response to terrorism? > How about bulldozing entire houses either to get at one person who may be > inside, or as an act of retaliation against a bomber's family? If there is someone inside or if the wrong house gets demolished than that's just "collateral damage". Anyway when dealing with people prepared to kill themselves in an attack superior military firepower just dosn't work as any kind of deterent.

2003-04-26 23:19:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:18:00 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, this is an EXCELLENT policy. Becoming a suicide bomber is a >> family decision. This policy has led to a major reduction in the rate >> of bombings in Israel. Don't worry too much, though, the families get >> generous donations (all though 25k LESS than they used to) from Saudis >> and others. > >Err, from what I've read, becoming a suicide bomber is a social, political, >and individual decision. Families try to dissuade their children from >joining such groups. When they find out that their children have blown >themselves up, they're usually quite upset. To go and knock down their >house afterwards seems a touch OTT. > That explains why they have little parties, passing out candy in celebration. >In contrast, compare with the British method of dealing with the IRA. Since >the onset of political engagement, the rate of bombings has gone down >drastically. IIRC, there has'nt been a bomb on the mainland for over 7 >years. The IRA has scaled down all its activities, including the >non-violent (but still illegal) side. Former members are dragging the >organisation into the mainstream. The general population of NI is content, >and overwhelmingly opposed to continuing paramilitary activity. All >achieved by political means. > > >> A question for you: >> >> What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus >> full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against >> civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE that >> Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your motivations. >> You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few civilians in a >> RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a Palestinian bomber >> deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. Can you say >> "hypocrisy"? > >Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian >dead. And one of the PLO's complaints whenever Israel demands that it shuts >down the terrorist groups is that its police aren't given the powers to >enforce such a decision. It tried to do so, before the current intifada, >but the Israeli refusal to keep their side of the bargain (ending and >withdrawing settlements), not to mention their continuing harassment of the >Palestinians, meant that the police lost popular support after a few months >of one-sided treaty-keeping. I remember thinking at the time that the >Palestinians *couldn't* carry on in this farcical position. The bombings NEVER stopped. 260 Israelis killed between 1993 and 1998 in terrorist attacks by Palestinian organizations. At BEST, the broken treaty is a chicken or egg scenario. Thats being generous to the Palestinians. If the treaty calls for ending terrorist attacks, and they do not end, what is the point? The PA might not be DIRECTLY responsible for such attacks, but they sure could have tried harder to stop Hamas et al. > >Cheers, ymt. > Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-26 23:24:54+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). But it's > irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that says > "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. Even with rationalisations that supporting Israel is because of the situation Israel is in. Somehow a regional superpower nation is a "victim"... > Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial cleansing, Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. > genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" has been > reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. > Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere collateral > damage. As presumably were the Arabs the Zionists were harrassing in the 1920's...

2003-04-26 23:26:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:4nelavk3aqie34tlv1msfhqgl9qn7vgpke@4ax.com: > On 26 Apr 2003 14:12:38 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in >>news:vvujavc8i5484ruii8r8oif1boch0vl27k@4ax.com: >> >>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 04:22:24 +0100, "Yuk Tang" >>> <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>Again, note what started this current intifada. Shit-stirring by >>>>Ariel Sharon doesn't make friends. Taking away already scarce land >>>>does not make friends. Sending tanks and helicopter gunships into >>>>urban areas does not make friends. Once again, note the kill ratio >>>>of Israelis to Palestinians. Is a Jew worth 10 Muslims? What's the >>>>exchange rate for a Christian? >>>> >>> Do you think it is football game or something? Fairness has nothing >>> to do with it. Israel is the superior power in the region. Of course >>> they are more successful at killing terrorists. >> >>They're more successful at killing *people*. Surely you're not >>suggesting that car bombs, air raids and indiscriminate shelling only >>kills terrorists... does sending tanks into, or orchestrating air >>strikes on, residential areas seem a considered response to terrorism? >> How about bulldozing entire houses either to get at one person who >>may be inside, or as an act of retaliation against a bomber's family? >> > > Killing people is what the military does. This is cold and brutal, to > say the least. But it is a fact. > > As for the indiscriminate killing, Israel is largely successful at > avoiding civilian casualties. You're joking, right? When was the last time you heard of the RAF carrying out air strikes on Belfast? What a ludicrous statement. > As for the bulldozing of the bombers house: > > Yes, this is an EXCELLENT policy. Becoming a suicide bomber is a > family decision. This policy has led to a major reduction in the rate > of bombings in Israel. Don't worry too much, though, the families get > generous donations (all though 25k LESS than they used to) from Saudis > and others. > > A question for you: > > What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus > full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against > civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE that > Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your motivations. > You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few civilians in a > RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a Palestinian bomber > deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. Can you say > "hypocrisy"? I beg your pardon? How in the hell does my condemnation of one side of a struggle mean that I'm pro the other side? There are atrocities on both sides, only a fool would claim otherwise, but my point was aimed at atrocities committed by Israel. Indeed, palestinian suicide bombing of civillian areas is indefensible, and an act of total brutality, born out of both desparation and cowardice. If you think I'm a terroist sympathiser then you're very much mistaken, and I completely resent the charge of hypocracy. I suppose your next comment is going to be an accusation of anti-semitism? What a nasty individual you really are.

2003-04-26 23:33:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:blBqa.126590$ja4.5412999@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > Paul Smith wrote in message ... <snip washington post article> > This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). > But it's > irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that > says "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. > Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial > cleansing, > genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" > has been reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. > Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere > collateral > damage. I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates such as this one.

2003-04-26 23:45:52+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > By which you mean the current Israeli government and the thousands of > religious fanatics willing to set up illegal (or don't you regard the Oslo They are certainly fanatics, the religious bit is debatable. > agreement as legal?) settlements in land that is legally Palestinian, > risking their lives and then begging for the Israeli army to protect them? IIRC they don't even have to beg, since Israeli law *obliges* the IDF to protect them. Even if everyone, including the Israeli government and military, agrees that the "settlers" being where they are is illegal. > This is the major point in Palestinian/Israeli problems: Israel has > been moving in on land that was agreed to be Palestinian ever since the > 1950s, exactly the same way that the US moved in on the Native Americans. Also a continuation of how the Zionists acted before there even was a country called "Israel". > Sign a treaty, break it, send the army to drive them out and settle the > land: year after year, mile after mile, murder after murder. Now the Combined also with claiming that the people who were being driven out were uncivilised and any show of resistance was proof that they were hostile. Something which continued for long after any kind of hostilities had ended. > Israelis are firing air-to-ground missiles into towns and villages to kill > people they merely think might be involved in resistance, regardless of how > many other people they may kill too. And the US is backing this up as being Of course if doing this provokes a reaction then that's "proof" that there were "terrorists" there... > part of the "War on terrorism". > Americans still wonder why Moslems show a degree of disapproval of US > policies. I can't help but wonder why, until I look at the headlines in the Hardly confined to Moslems, people all over the planet of every nationality (including Americans) and every religion (including Jews) have been disapproving of US policies. > local paper (Why is the local team losing?) or the top story in the local TV > news (Why is the local team losing?): nobody cares. Nobody cares about US foreign policy or nobody cares why the local team is losing....

2003-04-27 00:01:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:gs5mavohhajtikcaed2nt26asats099img@4ax.com: >>> What about the civilians killed in Israel? How is blowing up a bus >>> full of old ladies and little children NOT an appalling act against >>> civilians? The refusal of people on your side to even ACKNOWLEDE >>> that Palestinian atrocities occur speaks volumes about your >>> motivations. You condemn Israel whenever they mistakenly kill a few >>> civilians in a RESPONE, and than are COMPLETELY silent when a >>> Palestinian bomber deliberately blows up a bus FULL of civilians. >>> Can you say "hypocrisy"? >> >>I beg your pardon? How in the hell does my condemnation of one side >>of a struggle mean that I'm pro the other side? There are atrocities >>on both sides, only a fool would claim otherwise, but my point was >>aimed at atrocities committed by Israel. Indeed, palestinian suicide >>bombing of civillian areas is indefensible, and an act of total >>brutality, born out of both desparation and cowardice. If you think >>I'm a terroist sympathiser then you're very much mistaken, and I >>completely resent the charge of hypocracy. I suppose your next >>comment is going to be an accusation of anti-semitism? >> > Quite the contrary. You have risen in stature in my eyes with this > paragraph! So you would agree with my point that both sides in this 'war'are committing heinous acts of violence against one another, or are you merely glad I said something bad about the palestinians?

2003-04-27 00:01:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 26 Apr 2003 23:33:28 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >news:blBqa.126590$ja4.5412999@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> Paul Smith wrote in message ... > ><snip washington post article> > >> This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). >> But it's >> irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that >> says "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. >> Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial >> cleansing, >> genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" >> has been reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. >> Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere >> collateral >> damage. > >I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their news >media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and pro-israel it's no >wonder that that such comments appear in debates such as this one. The US media is indeed biased. They did not even report the fact that 1000 Israelis were late to work at the WTC on 9/11 because they had advance knowledge of the attacks!! Do you get this??? 1000 Israeli citizens were ACCOMPLICES in the 9/11 attacks!! So much for 9/11 being am Israeli GOVERNMENT conspiracy!! It extends to thousands of average Israeli citzens!! Nor did they report the police who look the other way when Isaeli terrorists carry out operations in the USA!! I guess they do not want us to know that police nationwide are under strict orders to permit Israeli terrorists to carry out their operations in the USA..... Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed with box knives. What does this imply?? Mark?? A little help?? These are YOUR stories!!. Could you clarify this for me?? I would appreciate it. Anyway, If THIS horsecrap constitutes the "balanced" media, I will take the US brand ANY DAY!!! By the way, I have been asking Mr. Evans forever why these stories damning Israel are NOT mentioned in the USA. I already know the answer to the question, but he is too wily to fall for my trap. It would, however, go a long way towards identifying his state of mind. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-27 00:10:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:lk6mavs0f7m6upba4iukaq109ompetiq23@4ax.com: > On 26 Apr 2003 23:33:28 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >>news:blBqa.126590$ja4.5412999@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >>> >>> Paul Smith wrote in message ... >> >><snip washington post article> >> >>> This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). >>> But it's >>> irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that >>> says "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. >>> Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial >>> cleansing, >>> genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" >>> has been reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. >>> Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere >>> collateral >>> damage. >> >>I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their >>news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and >>pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates >>such as this one. > > The US media is indeed biased. > > They did not even report the fact that 1000 Israelis were late to work > at the WTC on 9/11 because they had advance knowledge of the attacks!! > Do you get this??? 1000 Israeli citizens were ACCOMPLICES in the 9/11 > attacks!! So much for 9/11 being am Israeli GOVERNMENT conspiracy!! It > extends to thousands of average Israeli citzens!! > > Nor did they report the police who look the other way when Isaeli > terrorists carry out operations in the USA!! I guess they do not want > us to know that police nationwide are under strict orders to permit > Israeli terrorists to carry out their operations in the USA..... > > Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the > hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An > Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed > with box knives. What does this imply?? > > Mark?? A little help?? These are YOUR stories!!. Could you clarify > this for me?? I would appreciate it. > > Anyway, If THIS horsecrap constitutes the "balanced" media, I will > take the US brand ANY DAY!!! Do you have links for any of those stories? I'm sure they'll be an "interesting" read. :)

2003-04-27 00:32:46+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <b8ep6v$9bhtd$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, > > Even to the extent that's true, the goal of the IRA wasn't to destroy > the UK, so the comparison is inapt. If the UK made too many > concessions to the IRA, the worst that happened was that the IRA > gained some political influence in Northern Ireland; not the murder > of every British citizen. It's the stated goal of the IRA to expel the British from the island of Ireland and integrate it into a single republic. Look up what 'Sinn Fein' means. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-27 00:42:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8f4k6$9g9gk$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> Even to the extent that's true, the goal of the IRA wasn't to destroy >> the UK, so the comparison is inapt. If the UK made too many >> concessions to the IRA, the worst that happened was that the IRA >> gained some political influence in Northern Ireland; not the murder >> of every British citizen. >It's the stated goal of the IRA to expel the British from the island of >Ireland and integrate it into a single republic. Look up what 'Sinn Fein' >means. It was the stated goal of the IRA to create a united Ireland. To expel the British _government_ -- not the British -- from Northern Ireland. It was never the stated goal of the IRA to destroy the UK. On the other hand, it is the stated goal of the Palestinian terror groups, not to create a Palestinian state, but to eliminate Israel. To wipe it off the map entirely. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 00:45:47-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>>>So name them. That's all I'm asking. > >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to >bomb them. OK. How would that have ousted Saddam??? There have been weapon inspections for about a decade. What makes you think more inspections would have worked???

2003-04-27 00:50:09-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. Only a few Iraqi people.

2003-04-27 00:50:10-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:37:05 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >> Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money >> france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms >> to Iraq? > >I don't believe we were discussing arms sales to Iraq but the handing out of >contracts to US companies prior to the war. I see you side stepped that issue pretty well

2003-04-27 00:50:11-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>I notice you haven't made any response to the post with the links confirming >the "jobs for the boys" by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. What is there to respond to? The fact that they were easy to find on the internet makes it pretty clear that these contracts were given out in the open and not in secret. If it was not legit we would have heard about it by now

2003-04-27 00:51:23+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > You don't RC. ??? > False. The current intifada was planned by the PLO to put pressure on > Israel. Sharon had nothing to do with it, as the PLO has said several > times. > > (Of course, the entire premise, if true, would just show the situation > Israel faces: Sharon walks around, and in response Palestinians start > killing people.) A bit idiotic to say that that was the cause. WWI was not *caused* by the Sarajevo assassination. It was *caused* by the arms race between Germany and Britain, France's resentment at having lost the 1870 war, and the system of alliances that developed in the meanwhile. The assassination was the spark that led to war. The current intifada was not *caused* by Sharon walking around in Muslim areas. It was caused by Israel's invasion and occupation of land ceded by treaty to the Palestinians. Sharon's shit-stirring was the spark that led to the current conflict. > There is no Palestinian state. Israel signed a treaty that gave land to be used to establish a Palestinian state. The Palestinian signatory is held to represent the Palestinian state. > Well, there you go. Stop watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Company. > Read > a slightly less biased source. What do you suggest? Fox news? Do you realise that the BBC has a reputation for balanced and accurate news coverage that is second to none? > No, don't. For one thing, you're making up the numbers. For another, > "kill ratios" are irrelevant; more Germans died than Americans in > WW2, but that certainly doesn't mean that Germany is the side with > the grievance. But Germany invaded and occupied a country in defiance of international law. The Palestinians aren't doing so. The Israelis are. Deal with it. > For a third, if one was going to look at deaths, one should look at > innocent deaths, not combatant deaths. And most Palestinian deaths > are combatant deaths; most Israel deaths are civilian deaths. The body count in this intifada as I last heard it was around 100-150 Israeli dead, and around 1000 Palestinian dead. Break it down as you will. > Netanyahu wasn't the prime minister before Sharon. Barak was. Rabin signed the treaty. Netanyahu was the next to be elected. Netanyahu was the first PM to break the treaty by building settlements on Palestinian land. > No. Peace treaties do not "establish" peace. They're just pieces of > paper. Why don't Europeans understand the difference between paper > and reality? Voila. The American attitude to international law. Better living through superior firepower. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-27 00:54:20+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > Now the question arises: Why should anyone keep treaties with the US? As Nieporen said elsewhere, regarding the Oslo agreement. 'Peace treaties do not "establish" peace. They're just pieces of paper. Why don't Europeans understand the difference between paper and reality?' The US cannot be trusted where international accords are concerned. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-27 00:57:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 27 Apr 2003 00:10:24 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >Do you have links for any of those stories? I'm sure they'll be an >"interesting" read. :) No!!! I was not implying that you believe any of that, btw. Some do, however. It was all part of my petty vendetta against Evans. I am officially over all that, starting.......... NOW!! Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-27 00:58:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <vlbmavkoth3t83sqo295dm18sq6u4jk2pu@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >regard to Iraq, I'm looking at it now, and what are you talking about? Evenhanded, as in it balances equally the Iraqi position with the French position? I'm looking at their Iraq page now -- http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm -- and I see things which openly take the Iraqi side and things which half-heartedly take the Iraqi side, but I see nothing about the American side. I don't see any quotes from pro-American sources, though I see plenty of quotes from the Guardian, Znet, The Nation, Counterpunch, and the like. I see anti-sanctions and anti-war pieces, but nothing pro-liberation. > maybe it will be similarly so for the Israel-Palestine >conflict -- figured I'd post the link before I finished wading through >it. Looks like a primer on the subject: >http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/isrlindx.htm Since I see nothing representing the Israeli side, I don't think it's very useful. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 01:00:39-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <sbbmavogrjco531g93r27ingqna6n1gg3u@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: > "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm >>>Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian >>>dead. >>Please stop saying this. It's completely wrong. By an order of magnitude. >>Go look at the link I provided above. >I know I have a lot to learn about all this, but I'm not going to put >my faith in a set of Israeli statistics on this, anymore than I would >base my opinions solely on a Palestinian site. >Got something more objective to point to? Who says it wasn't objective? Go look at the report I linked to, and tell me where they demonstrated lack of objectivity in their tabulation of these statistics. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 01:06:09-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <mv0f8b.fo2.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). But it's >> irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that says >> "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. >Even with rationalisations that supporting Israel is because of the >situation Israel is in. Somehow a regional superpower nation is >a "victim"... Yes. Being strong doesn't make one evil. Being weak doesn't make one noble. >> Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial cleansing, >Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. WTF is Mark talking about here? >> genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" has been >> reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. >> Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere collateral >> damage. >As presumably were the Arabs the Zionists were harrassing in the >1920's... Yes. It's terrible how all those Jewish corpses in Hebron kept tripping the Arabs. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 01:08:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <Xns936A5BA8DFC2ozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >> Paul Smith wrote in message ... ><snip washington post article> >> This is true (and I love the image of "a frustrated Clinton"). But it's >> irrelevant. The US public has had over 50 years of propaganda that >> says "Israel good. Arabs bad!", and that's what they believe. >> Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial cleansing, >> genocidal operation that slaughtered over 18,000,000 "Untermensch" >> has been reduced to a religious pogrom that killed 8,000,000 Jews. >> Throw away the 10,000,000 goyim: they are irrelevant, mere >> collateral damage. >I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their news >media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and pro-israel it's no >wonder that that such comments appear in debates such as this one. The news media should not be "balanced" in the sense of treating all positions as having equal merit. The news media should strive for _accuracy._ --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 01:16:51-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:28:44 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wroth: > >parismom wrote in message <3EA6E269.5BE282B4@verizon.net>... >> >> >>Caffeine Cal wrote: >> Is there one form of democracy for America and another >>> form for its colonies? >>> >>> Caroline >> >>you're being just plain silly using the word colonies. i understand >>that's a sensitive issue with those on the emerald isle, but the last >>thing american wants or needs is to have a "colony" half-way around the >>world, if at all. the sooner we get the power and lights back on, the >>sooner we can leave. > > The way the US troops left Germany in 1950, after the economy got >restarted? And Japan? > The US had a colony in Panama for decades, and the Philippines and >Hawaii and still has Puerto Rico. > There'll be US troops in Iraq until the oil runs out. Wanna bet??????????????

2003-04-27 01:19:58-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <MPG.1914d195b4f71d519896aa@130.133.1.4>, David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power >> >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under >> >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to >> >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant >> >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." >> >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, >> >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose >> >of regime change? >> Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the >> area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. >Um, why? >Iraq has not attacked anyone since then. The area was, in fact, at peace, >and fairly secure. "You haven't killed anybody lately? Let's be best pals!" is not peace and security. Iraq had in fact threatened its neighbors, and citizens, several times since then. In 1994 the US sent thousands of troops over to the Gulf when Iraq moved its forces back towards the Kuwait border. Throughout the 1990s, Iraqi forces threatened Kurds in the north; only when the US sent its planes on low-flying runs over the Iraqi forces did they back off. Iraq had not lived up to its obligations under the cease-fire it agreed to in order to suspend hostilities. In short, Iraq was still in a state of war. It had refused to accept Kuwait's border. That's not peace and security. >> >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, >> >as is every other member? >> Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign >> state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the >> extent a greater power forces it to be. >Of course. >Now the question arises: Why should anyone keep treaties with the US? Self-interest. The same reason any country abides by any treaty. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 01:24:04+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:15:40 -0400, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >regard to Iraq, maybe it will be similarly so for the Israel-Palestine >conflict -- figured I'd post the link before I finished wading through >it. Looks like a primer on the subject: > Actually, it has one SHOCKING omission right off the bat. Israel was founded by the UN in 1948, on land that was a British mandate. At the SAME TIME, the UN wanted to create a neighboring Palestinian state. The Palestinians refused. Considering that the intro goes on to immediately speak of how the Palestinians were seeking a state, it seems like an odd omission. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-27 01:25:57-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:39:44 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wroth: > >"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to >America" >> > blame game. >> >> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >> >> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant >Saddam and 9/11. At least not yet. Give them time to go through the truck loads of documents

2003-04-27 01:34:51-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:36:22 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> Prove it. > >Come on Davie-boy, where's your response? My response to what??

2003-04-27 02:21:04-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <nieporen-ACE5C8.01195827042003@news.fu-berlin.de>, nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > In article <MPG.1914d195b4f71d519896aa@130.133.1.4>, > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > >nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > > >> >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > >> >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > >> >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > >> >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > >> >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." > > >> >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, > >> >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose > >> >of regime change? > > >> Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the > >> area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. > > >Um, why? > >Iraq has not attacked anyone since then. The area was, in fact, at peace, > >and fairly secure. > > "You haven't killed anybody lately? Let's be best pals!" is not peace and > security. > > Iraq had in fact threatened its neighbors, and citizens, several times > since then. In 1994 the US sent thousands of troops over to the Gulf when > Iraq moved its forces back towards the Kuwait border. Throughout the > 1990s, Iraqi forces threatened Kurds in the north; only when the US sent > its planes on low-flying runs over the Iraqi forces did they back off. Yes, and *that* would be using force in according with the resolution. All this, of course, is pretending the resolution is still important, which it isn't. There is currently a ceasefire in existence between Kuwait and Member States helping Kuwait, and Iraq. And, before you try to bring it up, no, the ceasefire did not require Iraq destroying WMD. The ceasefire had _no_ conditions under which it could become invalid. But why am I typing this, resolution 687 said it better: 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary- General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990); I call your attention to the fact that the ceasefire became in effect simply upon official notification from Iraq. Not when Iraq fulfilled its end of the ceasefire, or until it did so, or whatever, but when it merely *notified* the UN of intent to do so. It notified. Ceasefire became unconditionally in effect. (Arguably there's an implied exit from all ceasefires, when one side starts shooting again...but neither side did.) > Iraq had not lived up to its obligations under the cease-fire it agreed to > in order to suspend hostilities. In short, Iraq was still in a state of > war. It had refused to accept Kuwait's border. That's not peace and > security. Iraq had not refused to accept Kuwait's border. They had, in fact, notified the security council of just such acceptance to get the ceasefire. Tell me, what actions could Iraq have done to indicate said acceptance it did not do? > >> >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, > >> >as is every other member? > > >> Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign > >> state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the > >> extent a greater power forces it to be. > > >Of course. > >Now the question arises: Why should anyone keep treaties with the US? > > Self-interest. The same reason any country abides by any treaty. Ah, interesting moral foundation there.

2003-04-27 06:51:42-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>)


> From: David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> > > In article <mv0f8b.fo2.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. > > WTF is Mark talking about here? > He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed people who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various mental and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', i.e. eugenics. The Nazis also systematically killed Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies, and homosexuals, all for reasons based in their racist ideology. Depending on which casualty estimates one believes, the total number of Nazi murders of non-Jews might equal or even exceed the number of Jews killed. Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering the other people who died as well. Ed

2003-04-27 11:08:52-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <vlbmavkoth3t83sqo295dm18sq6u4jk2pu@4ax.com>, > Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >>regard to Iraq, > >I'm looking at it now, and what are you talking about? Evenhanded, as in >it balances equally the Iraqi position with the French position? > >I'm looking at their Iraq page now -- >http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm -- and I see things >which openly take the Iraqi side and things which half-heartedly take the >Iraqi side, but I see nothing about the American side. I don't see any >quotes from pro-American sources, though I see plenty of quotes from the >Guardian, Znet, The Nation, Counterpunch, and the like. I see >anti-sanctions and anti-war pieces, but nothing pro-liberation. "Liberation" was not the issue. That was an after-the-fact rationale. WMD were the issue. Remember them? The ones that nobody can find? Frankly I think the US was (and is) *way* out of line. So, the fact that GPF is not insultingly condemning US aggression in Iraq seems plenty evenhanded to me. Lord knows all you need is a quick glimpse at "embedded" mainstream American media to get the pro-American POV. Don't forget that except for the UK, most of the world was against this military action. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-27 11:20:54-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:15:40 -0400, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >>regard to Iraq, maybe it will be similarly so for the Israel-Palestine >>conflict -- figured I'd post the link before I finished wading through >>it. Looks like a primer on the subject: >> > >Actually, it has one SHOCKING omission right off the bat. > >Israel was founded by the UN in 1948, on land that was a British >mandate. At the SAME TIME, the UN wanted to create a neighboring >Palestinian state. The Palestinians refused. I was referencing Global Policy Forum as a starting point, since there are a *ton* of links from it. Here's 2 UN synopses easily gotten from GPF: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument The second link cites reasons why the Palestinians rejected the UN's (and the League of Nations') Mandate, though it doesn't actually use the word "refuse". OTOH it does point out that by 1948 Israel had expanded its territorial control to include all of Palestine. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-27 11:27:12+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:39:44 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wroth: >> >>"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >>> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >>> >>> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> >>> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to >>America" >>> > blame game. >>> >>> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation >>> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. >>> >>> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. >> >>I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant >>Saddam and 9/11. > At least not yet. Give them time to go through the truck loads of > documents Especially those made of asbestos...

2003-04-27 12:29:18+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-6C64B0.01084227042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <Xns936A5BA8DFC2ozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, > Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >>I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their >>news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and >>pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates >>such as this one. > > The news media should not be "balanced" in the sense of treating all > positions as having equal merit. The news media should strive for > _accuracy._ Surely by treating every position equally, and just reporting on facts in an accurate manner, a balanced view of the situation is created, and the viewer is free to make up their own mind on what's happening. Sadly FOX, CNN, MSNBC are about 90% editorial and 10% news.

2003-04-27 12:43:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-55DDFF.17540926042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > > >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." > > >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, > >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose > >of regime change? > > Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the > area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. Yes, ten-year old resolutions quoted out of context do make is sound like they authorised the current war, but I don't buy it. Few reasonable people do. > >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, > >as is every other member? > > Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign > state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the > extent a greater power forces it to be. Like I said before, no honour.

2003-04-27 12:56:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:43:42 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >message news:nieporen-55DDFF.17540926042003@news.fu-berlin.de... >> In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> >> >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has >the power >> >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" >under >> >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary >means to >> >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent >relevant >> >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in >the area." >> >> >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, >> >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the >purpose >> >of regime change? >> >> Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in >the >> area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. > >Yes, ten-year old resolutions quoted out of context do make is sound >like they authorised the current war, but I don't buy it. Few >reasonable people do. Are you for real? You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another resolution, over and over again. Therefore, countries involved in the war were free to resume hostilities and make them comply. Why do you think we had often bombed Iraq during the last 12years when they violated things like the no fly zones? Were we violating the UN charter then too? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-27 15:02:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"David Glenn Misner" <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote in message news:jq2nav8osbh4j3nfs9sem94sv6tm5ps850@4ax.com... > >I notice you haven't made any response to the post with the links confirming > >the "jobs for the boys" by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. > > > What is there to respond to? The fact that they were easy to find on > the internet makes it pretty clear that these contracts were given out > in the open and not in secret. If it was not legit we would have > heard about it by now Why? Just because they are legal, open, and not debated in the US does not make them ethical, moral, or beyond question. Your assumption that "we" hear reports of everything "not legit" is pretty naive, particularly given how little real media scrutiny is given to the US government actions by the US media right now.

2003-04-27 15:03:48-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:16:19 +0100, did you or did you not state: >In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> Are you for real? You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already >> decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. >> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease >> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet >> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did > >In which case it would be up to the UN to decide if *all* parties >were complying and what to do if that didn't happen. > >> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another >> resolution, over and over again. > >That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain >governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit it to exercise. >How is resuming hostilities not breaking a ceasefire. When the government which was _allowed_ to survive under a ceasefire agreement refuses to abide by the terms of the agreement, the other side has _no_ obligation to continue the ceasefire. The ceasefire ended due to IRAQ's refusal to comply with it. >There is also the strange situation of a "no fly zone" which >involves the bombing of targets on the *ground*. Including >anti-aircraft weapons. What's strange about destroying anti-aircraft weapons that can (only) be used against your own planes? >Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by >throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed >are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems >designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further >irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying >in the "no fly zone". It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ aircraft. >This is usually known as "establishing a zone of air dominance". >So that your aircraft can violate someone else's airspace whilst >they can do nothing about it. Exactly. We left the Iraqi government in power on condition that they behave. And forbade them to fly aircraft in certain areas so make sure they didn't use those aircraft in ways they were forbidden. It ain't rocket science. -- "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see." "_Real_ things?" --Egg Shen and Jack Burton

2003-04-27 15:16:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:9i2oavskm0p4sc9ajgujdcmk0tmr9qqdbd@4ax.com... > >Yes, ten-year old resolutions quoted out of context do make is sound > >like they authorised the current war, but I don't buy it. Few > >reasonable people do. > > Are you for real? Yes. Are you? Maybe you're just a voice in my head... random pixels on my monitor.... LOL > You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already > decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. Don't be a jackass... or be a jackass if you want to be, it just weakens your arguments and makes my job easier. *Before* forming a firm opinion on all this, *months ago*, I read through 678, 660, 1441, and several other UN resolutions. I also read opinion pieces on those resolutions, particularly those I could find from experts in international law. My conclusion was, and remains, that applying 660/678 as sole justification for the current invasion of Iraq is highly questionable at best, and concluding that they allow any country(ies) to invade without explicit UNSC sanction is wishful thinking and ridiculous rationalisation... which I believe the US was well aware of when it sought 1441. 1441, on the other hand, can be considered as somewhat ambiguous. I don't consider it as sanctioning military force without further UNSC approval. This seems to have been the US opinion as well as they sought yet another resolution on the issue. When it became clear that was not likely to happen, the US did a 180 and claimed 1441, 660, and 678 allowed them to take action. Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, but claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. > They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease > fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet > all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did > not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another > resolution, over and over again. The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. > Therefore, countries involved in the war were free to resume hostilities and > make them comply. Why do you think we had often bombed Iraq during the > last 12years when they violated things like the no fly zones? Were we > violating the UN charter then too? The no-fly zones are a contentious issue in their own right, but not the same as the invasion of Iraq.

2003-04-27 15:31:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:16:31 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, >perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, but >claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. Yet you admit the Gulf war ended in a cease fire, NOT a peace treaty. Strange. A cease fire actually means the war has not come to an end. It didn't until Iraq met it's agreed upon obligations. >> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a >cease >> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq >would meet >> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. >They did >> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue >another >> resolution, over and over again. > >The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. And not a peace treaty. Hostilities could begin again at any time if Iraq didn't meat their obligations. They didn't. >> Therefore, countries involved in the war were free to resume >hostilities and >> make them comply. Why do you think we had often bombed Iraq during >the >> last 12years when they violated things like the no fly zones? Were >we >> violating the UN charter then too? > >The no-fly zones are a contentious issue in their own right, but not >the same as the invasion of Iraq. Nice dodge. The no-fly zones and periodic bombing of Iraqi targets were enforcing the cease fire agreement. Ultimately, so was this. Are there other reasons at work here for why we chose this time to do it? You betcha, but that doesn't mean we didn't have the right. Can't help the fact that France, Russia, Germany and others didn't want to enforce anything. We didn't need them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-27 16:01:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b0snavktkrcr66icr56v55sj6io0a5ntbv@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:15:40 -0400, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >>>regard to Iraq, maybe it will be similarly so for the Israel-Palestine >>>conflict -- figured I'd post the link before I finished wading through >>>it. Looks like a primer on the subject: >>Actually, it has one SHOCKING omission right off the bat. >>Israel was founded by the UN in 1948, on land that was a British >>mandate. At the SAME TIME, the UN wanted to create a neighboring >>Palestinian state. The Palestinians refused. >I was referencing Global Policy Forum as a starting point, since there >are a *ton* of links from it. Here's 2 UN synopses easily gotten from GPF: >http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html >http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c78 >2e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument >The second link cites reasons why the Palestinians rejected the UN's >(and the League of Nations') Mandate, though it doesn't actually use >the word "refuse". OTOH it does point out that by 1948 Israel had >expanded its territorial control to include all of Palestine. I've only skimmed it because it's somewhat long, and I don't see that comment, but that's certainly false, so if it says that, we can ignore the document. Israel has never controlled all of Palestine. Ever. Certainly not in 1948, a time when Israel controlled *part of* the *western portion of* Palestine. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 16:06:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <BAD12E7E.51082%ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>, Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: > From: David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. >> WTF is Mark talking about here? >He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed people >who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various mental >and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', >i.e. eugenics. Yes, I'm aware of that. If he were merely trying to say that others besides Jews died thanks to his Nazi buddies, that's hardly a new piece of information, and it's not relevant to this discussion. So that gets me back to the question: WTF is Mark talking about here? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 16:09:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <Xns936A8939360DDozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >>>I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their >>>news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and >>>pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates >>>such as this one. >> The news media should not be "balanced" in the sense of treating all >> positions as having equal merit. The news media should strive for >> _accuracy._ >Surely by treating every position equally, and just reporting on facts in >an accurate manner, a balanced view of the situation is created, How can there be a "balanced view of the situation" if the situation isn't balanced? You can't accurately present both sides as equally justified or equally in the wrong unless both sides are equally justified or equally in the wrong. >and the >viewer is free to make up their own mind on what's happening. Sadly FOX, >CNN, MSNBC are about 90% editorial and 10% news. There's plenty of commentary on those channels, and there's nothing wrong with commentary that's labelled as such. The problem comes when editorializing is presented as fact. There's nobody nearly as egregiously biased as a John Pilger or Robert Fisk, who pretend to actually be reporters, on any of those channels. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-27 16:26:47+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:55:55 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >Repeating press releases, especially from entities which have a vested >interest in things being reported to suit them, is hardly reporting >on the facts. >Reporters embedded with soilders are hardly likely to be able to report >the facts accuratly, even if they want to. > And the US media didnt even repeat the press releases about those 1000 Israelis at the WTC who were late to work on 9/11!! Or that Israeli commando on one of the hijacked planes!! In fact, they did not even mention the woman at an airport in NYC who was caught with terrorist materials, only to be released immediately upon flashing her Israeli passport!!! Any news organization that would not report any of those OBVIOUSLY true stories MUST be biased!!! I ask you for the 50th time, WHY were those stories not reported in the USA?? Stimpson

2003-04-27 16:33:48+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Speaker-to-Customers <greebo@manx.net>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > Mark Evans wrote: >> In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede wrote: > >>> Anyone who doesn't gets the "Holocaust" guilt trip. A racial >>> cleansing, > >> Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. > > WTF is Mark talking about here? The systematic extermination of those the Nazis termed the "useless eaters". The physically and mentally disabled. They fed people with Spina Bifida, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, those with mental illnesses, etcetera, into the ovens right alongside the Jews, the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the Polish Catholics, the Communists, and probably other groups I have overlooked. Paul Speaker-to-Customers

2003-04-27 16:36:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: >> From: David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >> >> In article <mv0f8b.fo2.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. >> >> WTF is Mark talking about here? >> > He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed people > who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various mental > and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', > i.e. eugenics. Undoubtedly including political opponents in this catagory too. > The Nazis also systematically killed Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies, and > homosexuals, all for reasons based in their racist ideology. Depending on > which casualty estimates one believes, the total number of Nazi murders of Anyone attempting to actually do the research needed to find out they actual figures is likely to be shouted down as a "Holocaust Denier". > non-Jews might equal or even exceed the number of Jews killed. Another Axis power, Imperial Japan, also systematically killed/worked to death people in the countries they occupied. > Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering > the other people who died as well. It all depends on what catagories are used. By numbers Poles appear to have suffered the greatest loss. Relative to their pre-war population size, groups such as the Gypsies appear to have suffered a greater loss.

2003-04-27 16:55:55+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > news:nieporen-6C64B0.01084227042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> In article <Xns936A5BA8DFC2ozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, >> Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >>>I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their >>>news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and >>>pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates >>>such as this one. >> >> The news media should not be "balanced" in the sense of treating all >> positions as having equal merit. The news media should strive for >> _accuracy._ > Surely by treating every position equally, and just reporting on facts in > an accurate manner, a balanced view of the situation is created, and the Repeating press releases, especially from entities which have a vested interest in things being reported to suit them, is hardly reporting on the facts. Reporters embedded with soilders are hardly likely to be able to report the facts accuratly, even if they want to. > viewer is free to make up their own mind on what's happening. Sadly FOX, > CNN, MSNBC are about 90% editorial and 10% news. Also how often do you see an American reporter grill a US politican about something that politican said or did?

2003-04-27 19:47:54-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <fkboav0mb8qdot03jb4eer87jvcf7d1fge@4ax.com>, me@privacy.net says... > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:16:31 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > > >Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, > >perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, but > >claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. > > Yet you admit the Gulf war ended in a cease fire, NOT a peace treaty. > Strange. A cease fire actually means the war has not come to an end. It > didn't until Iraq met it's agreed upon obligations. The point that you seem to be missing is that the war was between Kuwait and Iraq. Member nations of the UN were authorized to help Kuwait use force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. (Kuwait, of course, didn't need authorization.) That was what the war was about, that is what the use of force was authorized for. You know, it's entirely possible to read the UN resolutions in such a screwy way and come to the conclusion that the war was still going on, and _Kuwait_ was authorized to continue the invasion of Iraq, along with all member States of the UN. As _Kuwait_ didn't have anything to do with this invasion of Iraq, however, that still doesn't have anything to do with anything. > >> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a > >cease > >> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq > >would meet > >> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. > >They did > >> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue > >another > >> resolution, over and over again. > > > >The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. > > And not a peace treaty. Hostilities could begin again at any time if Iraq > didn't meat their obligations. They didn't. Yes, the UN could, at any time, authorize the use of force again to enforce their resolution. Hell, they could authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power, or to make Iraq change their name to Iraqistan or Iraqivista. That doesn't seem incredibly relevant, though. The fact that the *UN* might be at war with Iraq doesn't authorize them *US* to break the ceasefire. The only people arguably had *any* right to break the ceasefire would be Iraq, Kuwait, or _possibly_ the UN. The US were just unpaid mercenaries working under the authorization of the UN at the request of Kuwait, _we_ certainly didn't have any right to unilaterally decide the war between Kuwait and Iraq wasn't over. That's just insane logic.

2003-04-27 20:40:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-969789.16093727042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <Xns936A8939360DDozric99lineonenet@212.23.3.14>, > Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >>David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >>> Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>>>I couldn't agree more. I've just spent a month in the US and their >>>>news media (especially tv news) is so rabidly unbalanced and >>>>pro-israel it's no wonder that that such comments appear in debates >>>>such as this one. > >>> The news media should not be "balanced" in the sense of treating all >>> positions as having equal merit. The news media should strive for >>> _accuracy._ > >>Surely by treating every position equally, and just reporting on facts >>in an accurate manner, a balanced view of the situation is created, > > How can there be a "balanced view of the situation" if the situation > isn't balanced? You can't accurately present both sides as equally > justified or equally in the wrong unless both sides are equally > justified or equally in the wrong. There's a difference in balanced reporting and a balanced situation. By giving people the facts, not dressing up editorial as facts, and giving equal import to both sides, you will present a balanced view of the situation. That doesn't exist in US TV news. >>and the >>viewer is free to make up their own mind on what's happening. Sadly >>FOX, CNN, MSNBC are about 90% editorial and 10% news. > > There's plenty of commentary on those channels, and there's nothing > wrong with commentary that's labelled as such. The problem comes when > editorializing is presented as fact. There's nobody nearly as > egregiously biased as a John Pilger or Robert Fisk, who pretend to > actually be reporters, on any of those channels. We're obviously discussing different channels. I'm talking about MSNBC, CNN and FOX News - what channels are you talking about?

2003-04-27 20:46:26-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: > And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >invading. Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real (well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand further up your sleeve). And funny how the US refuses to admit the UN inspectors back in -- whether to help look for the things, or to verify the truth of claims of WMD. If it wasn't so sick it would crack me up: the US insulted the crap out of Blix and UNMOVIC -- suggesting that they were incompetent dupes, and *that* was the reason for not finding WMD. But now that the shoe's on the other foot, the US is saying "huh, well just give us time, we'll find those darned WMD". This is hopefully my last followup to this thread, I'm trying to let this go -- at least in here, these ng's are places I go to *escape* from the bullshit of the world situation. But I'm like a dog with a bone... Mostly I want to know which ad agency marketed this war for "the Coalition". It's all too slick... The decks of "most wanted" cards disturb me... -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-27 21:16:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Are you for real? You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already > decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. > They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease > fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet > all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did In which case it would be up to the UN to decide if *all* parties were complying and what to do if that didn't happen. > not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another > resolution, over and over again. That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... Anyway the UN sent weapons inspectors to Iraq. > Therefore, countries involved in the war were free to resume hostilities and > make them comply. Why do you think we had often bombed Iraq during the How is resuming hostilities not breaking a ceasefire. It's also dosn't help weapons inspectors do their job when the place is being bombed. > last 12years when they violated things like the no fly zones? Were we > violating the UN charter then too? Maybe not, but it certainly didn't help to falsely claim that the "no fly zones" had anything to do with the UN. There is also the strange situation of a "no fly zone" which involves the bombing of targets on the *ground*. Including anti-aircraft weapons. Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying in the "no fly zone". This is usually known as "establishing a zone of air dominance". So that your aircraft can violate someone else's airspace whilst they can do nothing about it.

2003-04-27 21:26:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:9i2oavskm0p4sc9ajgujdcmk0tmr9qqdbd@4ax.com... >> >Yes, ten-year old resolutions quoted out of context do make is > sound >> >like they authorised the current war, but I don't buy it. Few >> >reasonable people do. >> >> Are you for real? > Yes. Are you? Maybe you're just a voice in my head... random pixels > on my monitor.... LOL >> You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already >> decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your > mind. > Don't be a jackass... or be a jackass if you want to be, it just > weakens your arguments and makes my job easier. > *Before* forming a firm opinion on all this, *months ago*, I read > through 678, 660, 1441, and several other UN resolutions. I also read > opinion pieces on those resolutions, particularly those I could find > from experts in international law. My conclusion was, and remains, > that applying 660/678 as sole justification for the current invasion > of Iraq is highly questionable at best, and concluding that they allow > any country(ies) to invade without explicit UNSC sanction is wishful > thinking and ridiculous rationalisation... which I believe the US was > well aware of when it sought 1441. Odds on right now, in Pyongyang, government officials have the text of and opinions on every resolution ever passed by the UN security council to see if there is anything which can possibly be used against the US... Officials in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh may well be doing the same. > 1441, on the other hand, can be considered as somewhat ambiguous. I > don't consider it as sanctioning military force without further UNSC > approval. This seems to have been the US opinion as well as they > sought yet another resolution on the issue. When it became clear that > was not likely to happen, the US did a 180 and claimed 1441, 660, and > 678 allowed them to take action. That resolution was apparently pulled when it became apparent that it would not pass. So there would be no need for the, by then demonized, French to veto it. > Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, > perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, but > claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. The whole point of 660 and 678 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. >> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a > cease >> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq > would meet >> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. > They did >> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue > another >> resolution, over and over again. > The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. As have quite a few other wars... Including the current hostilities in Iraq.

2003-04-27 22:33:54-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Yuk Tang wrote: > Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > > Every time Israel withdraws and loosens security measures in an effort > > to reduce tensions, the Pals take the opportunity to send in suicide > > bombers. Peace will never come about this way. At least Israel tries. > > The only Palestinian idea for peace is the elimination of Israel. That > > one ain't gonna happen. > > Err, the PLO signed a treaty (brokered by the US) that established peace. > The Israeli signatory was assassinated, and his successor unilaterally > repudiated the treaty (an illegal act). Even if Israel stops building now, > and refrains from sending its military into Palestinian towns, it would > still be in material breach of the treaty. It would remain so until Israel > hands over authority over the land to the Palestine, or until the PLO sign a > new treaty. Given that this is effectively an invasion, it's quite > understandable (if regrettable) that the Palestinian people would use > whatever means were available to retaliate. Israeli repression of the Palestinians provokes suicide terrorists, which provokes further Israeli repression. I believe that this cycle will continue as long as Israeli troops are in any part of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To end the violence, we must cut though the Gordon Knot (of Israeli occupation provoking terrorist attacks, and terrorist attacks provoking Israeli repression and further occupation). I therefore propose an International Peacemaking Force to replace the Israeli troops in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, quash any terrorists who attack Israel from that land, administer the Palestinians territories until a final peace treaty is signed, and start rebuilding the Palestinian infrastructure. With the Israelis gone, the Palestinians will have no reason to attack Israel anymore, which should drastically reduce terrorist attacks, and therefore reduce the barriers to a final treaty.

2003-04-27 22:36:20-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


tiffanyanderson2u@yahoo.com wrote: > The Mitchells spotted Laci while Scott was fishing, all you National > Enquirer subscribers should give all your cement theories a rest. Where did the Mitchells spot Laci?

2003-04-27 22:50:53-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


A large number of Iraqis have been demonstrating, demanding that the U.S. get out of Iraq. I believe that the U.S. should comply, so as to undercut the budding anti-American movement. To replace the U.S. troops, I urge that the U.S. ask democratic Muslim nations (such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh) to send in peacekeeping troops under the umbrella of the United Nations to keep law and order, start rebuilding Iraq, and assist the Iraqis towards democracy. I'm confident that the Iraqis will find troops from fellow Muslim nations much less objectionable than troops from the nation that just bombed the tar out of them!

2003-04-27 22:57:18-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > In article <o6djavc2s6dqfvstelcfc07hpq4oljl9rf@4ax.com>, > Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > >Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >>Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on > >>Saudi soil > > >Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. > >Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many > >more..... > > ...Timorese from East Timor. Spaniards from Spain. Al-Qaida wants to expel Timorese from East Timor, and restore Indonesia's brutal rule? They want to expel Spaniards from their own nation? When has Al-Qaida said that they want to expel Timorese and Spaniards from their own nations?

2003-04-27 23:01:48-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in > > >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power > >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under > >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to > >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant > >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." > > >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, > >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose > >of regime change? > > Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the > area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the Palestinians, and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN resolutions demanding that Israel get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out the 678 and 660 mandate "to restore international peace and security in the area."?

2003-04-27 23:13:59-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:18:00 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian > >dead. And one of the PLO's complaints whenever Israel demands that it shuts > >down the terrorist groups is that its police aren't given the powers to > >enforce such a decision. It tried to do so, before the current intifada, > >but the Israeli refusal to keep their side of the bargain (ending and > >withdrawing settlements), not to mention their continuing harassment of the > >Palestinians, meant that the police lost popular support after a few months > >of one-sided treaty-keeping. I remember thinking at the time that the > >Palestinians *couldn't* carry on in this farcical position. > > The bombings NEVER stopped. 260 Israelis killed between 1993 and 1998 > in terrorist attacks by Palestinian organizations. > > At BEST, the broken treaty is a chicken or egg scenario. Thats being > generous to the Palestinians. If the treaty calls for ending terrorist > attacks, and they do not end, what is the point? Chicken or egg: The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory will never end until the terrorist attacks stop, and the terrorist attacks will not stop as long as Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. To end this catch 22 situation, we must cut through the Gordian Knot by sending in an International Peacemaking Force to replace the Israeli troops (thus removing any REASON to attack Israel) and crush any terrorists who insist on attacking Israel in spite of no longer having any reason to do so. > The PA might not be DIRECTLY responsible for such attacks, but they > sure could have tried harder to stop Hamas et al. How for Allah's sake do you expect the PA to stop Hamas et al when Israel keeps reoccupying PA controlled territory, bombing Palestinian territory, assassinating Palestinians, bulldozing their property, and besieging Yassar Arafat?

2003-04-27 23:15:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Yuk Tang wrote: > David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > In article <b8ep6v$9bhtd$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, > > > > Even to the extent that's true, the goal of the IRA wasn't to destroy > > the UK, so the comparison is inapt. If the UK made too many > > concessions to the IRA, the worst that happened was that the IRA > > gained some political influence in Northern Ireland; not the murder > > of every British citizen. > > It's the stated goal of the IRA to expel the British from the island of > Ireland and integrate it into a single republic. Look up what 'Sinn Fein' > means. At least that's not as extreme as the extremist Palestinians who want to destroy Israel altogether!

2003-04-27 23:20:19-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: The US media is indeed biased. > > They did not even report the fact that 1000 Israelis were late to work > at the WTC on 9/11 because they had advance knowledge of the attacks!! > Do you get this??? 1000 Israeli citizens were ACCOMPLICES in the 9/11 > attacks!! So much for 9/11 being am Israeli GOVERNMENT conspiracy!! It > extends to thousands of average Israeli citzens!! Where did you read about the above? Can you provide a web link? > Nor did they report the police who look the other way when Isaeli > terrorists carry out operations in the USA!! I guess they do not want > us to know that police nationwide are under strict orders to permit > Israeli terrorists to carry out their operations in the USA..... > > Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the > hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An > Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed > with box knives. What does this imply?? The hijackers stole the commando's gun!

2003-04-27 23:26:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > > > >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having > >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. > > Only a few Iraqi people. I've seen CNN reports showing a whole crowd of Iraqis telling us to get out. It looked like a crowd of at least several hundred. In my book, several hundred is more than a few.

2003-04-27 23:28:42-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Mark Evans wrote: > In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:39:44 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > > <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wroth: > > >> > >>"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > >>news:bse88b.ban.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > >>> In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >>> > >>> > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >>> > >>> >>I said he'd be happy when he has lots of company in the "death to > >>America" > >>> > blame game. > >>> > >>> >> One of the planks in Bush's election platform was critical of nation > >>> >> building. Al Qaida and 9/11 changed all that. > >>> > >>> > And there is no substantive connection between Al Qaida and 9/11. > >> > >>I'd like to point out that that is a *massive* error on my part. I meant > >>Saddam and 9/11. > > > At least not yet. Give them time to go through the truck loads of > > documents > > Especially those made of asbestos... Over on alt.politics.elections, I have read about an asbestos terrorist passport that was found in the WTC ruins.

2003-04-27 23:31:27-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:55:55 +0100, Mark Evans > <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >Repeating press releases, especially from entities which have a vested > >interest in things being reported to suit them, is hardly reporting > >on the facts. > >Reporters embedded with soilders are hardly likely to be able to report > >the facts accuratly, even if they want to. > > > > And the US media didnt even repeat the press releases about those 1000 > Israelis at the WTC who were late to work on 9/11!! > > Or that Israeli commando on one of the hijacked planes!! > > In fact, they did not even mention the woman at an airport in NYC who > was caught with terrorist materials, only to be released immediately > upon flashing her Israeli passport!!! > > Any news organization that would not report any of those OBVIOUSLY > true stories MUST be biased!!! > > I ask you for the 50th time, WHY were those stories not reported in > the USA?? In which nations were these stories reported? I would like to read those stories myself.

2003-04-27 23:43:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, > >as is every other member? > > Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign > state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the > extent a greater power forces it to be. A U.S. attack against Iraq is against the supreme law of the United States of America! I. The UN Charter only permits the use of military force in 2 circumstances: To defend against an actual or imminent attack, and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of these conditions applies to the U.S. war against Iraq. Iraq was not attacking us or about to attack us, nor did the UN Security Council authorize military action against Iraq. Therefore, the U.S. attack on Iraq violates the UN Charter! II. The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the �supreme law of the land� under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. Moreover, the UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states� conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter). Therefore, violating the UN Charter by attacking Iraq violates the supreme law of the United States of America! QED.

2003-04-28 00:11:54+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... > > >> From: David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >> >> In article <mv0f8b.fo2.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> > >>> Including eugenic ethnic cleansing of the German people. >> >> WTF is Mark talking about here? >> > >He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed people >who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various mental >and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', >i.e. eugenics. > >The Nazis also systematically killed Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies, and >homosexuals, all for reasons based in their racist ideology. Depending on >which casualty estimates one believes, the total number of Nazi murders of >non-Jews might equal or even exceed the number of Jews killed. > >Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering >the other people who died as well. Thank you for being so patronising. So I misread "eugenic" for "ethnic": it was very early in the morning. For your information, the Germans are believed to have killed over 18,000,000 people as part of their racial and eugenic cleansing (although the number of eugenic killings were only a minor fraction of this and applied only to Germans). Over 8,000,000 were Jews, which hardly makes them the "primary target". If you bother to read contemporary documents you will find that the target was not Jews as a religious group: the Nazis didn't care about that: it was the fact that Jews were an exclusive "racial" group that strongly resisted any sort of intermarriage with outsiders, making them the sort of racially pure group that the Nazis were trying to pretend the Germans were. Russians and Poles and Gypsies were seen as inferior but cohesive "races" (using the insane definitions the Nazis made up) and had to be exterminated too. It's suggestive of the utter insanity of Nazi racial theories that the Japanese were somehow found to be "Aryan", while thousands of Polish children (Suitably blonde and blue eyed) were given Aryan status, adopted by Germans and raised as German speaking cannon fodder when the Nazi elite realised that Germans were being killed faster than even the Nazi breeding programmes could replace them. You might be interested to know that the German Eugenic and racial purity policies were based on 19th century American theories that the insane, imbeciles and the deformed should be sterilised to stop them breeding, and that "superior specimens" (Blond, blue eyed, tall WASPS) should be encouraged to have large families to counteract the breeding of inferior types like blacks and those short, dark, curly haired immigrants from Southern Europe.

2003-04-28 00:29:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <oikoav8cvlkiuiudvkktu93npbd2fdletm@4ax.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 > 21:16:19 +0100, did you or did you not state: > > >In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> Are you for real? You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already > >> decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. > >> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease > >> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet > >> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did > > > >In which case it would be up to the UN to decide if *all* parties > >were complying and what to do if that didn't happen. > > > >> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another > >> resolution, over and over again. > > > >That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain > >governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... > > So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) > _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any > other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit > it to exercise. You realize no one is disputing this, right?

2003-04-28 00:32:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ebie wrote in message <0asnav87sc8o3u682q9u79g1nt1kbtgtkk@4ax.com>... >Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: > >>In article <vlbmavkoth3t83sqo295dm18sq6u4jk2pu@4ax.com>, >> Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Found this site (Global Policy Forum), it seemed even-handed with >>>regard to Iraq, >> >>I'm looking at it now, and what are you talking about? Evenhanded, as in >>it balances equally the Iraqi position with the French position? >> >>I'm looking at their Iraq page now -- >>http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm -- and I see things >>which openly take the Iraqi side and things which half-heartedly take the >>Iraqi side, but I see nothing about the American side. I don't see any >>quotes from pro-American sources, though I see plenty of quotes from the >>Guardian, Znet, The Nation, Counterpunch, and the like. I see >>anti-sanctions and anti-war pieces, but nothing pro-liberation. > > >"Liberation" was not the issue. That was an after-the-fact rationale. >WMD were the issue. Remember them? The ones that nobody can find? > >Frankly I think the US was (and is) *way* out of line. So, the fact >that GPF is not insultingly condemning US aggression in Iraq seems >plenty evenhanded to me. > >Lord knows all you need is a quick glimpse at "embedded" mainstream >American media to get the pro-American POV. Don't forget that except >for the UK, most of the world was against this military action. Most of the UK was against it too, but now their troops are getting shot by Iraqis and the US people are showing support for the troops, not necessarily the fact they are in Iraq. But the Pro US bias of the US TV media is incredible: there is no point of view but the one that says the US is there to free the Iraqis and protect itself from the still invisible weapons of mass destruction that are a deadly threat to the people of the USA. For a week CNN kept showing lengthy shots of US troops pulling down a statue, but shows maybe 30 seconds of the many demonstrations protesting US occupation, mainly expressing disbelief that Iraqis could be so ungrateful. And it seems that everything that has happened to the civilians in Iraq is somehow, anyhow, never the fault of the US military. We hear that it was Baathists who destroyed the Baghdad electricity, Iraqi missiles that destroyed two markets in two separate incidents, it was Iraqis, not US troops destroying munitions, that killed a number of people in Baghdad. The lies are getting so obvious that even print journalists are beginning to question what they are being asked to believe. And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in invading.

2003-04-28 00:43:51-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <ovtoavkasdl3l5kca0uo3j9soi05e5jp5e@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: >> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>invading. >Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >further up your sleeve). Uh, yeah. It's always a good "propaganda tactic" to release information that doesn't support your position and which is easily and swiftly disproved. Whatever. Glad you thought that one through. > And funny how the US refuses to admit the UN >inspectors back in -- whether to help look for the things, or to >verify the truth of claims of WMD. If it wasn't so sick it would crack >me up: the US insulted the crap out of Blix and UNMOVIC -- suggesting >that they were incompetent dupes, and *that* was the reason for not >finding WMD. But now that the shoe's on the other foot, the US is >saying "huh, well just give us time, we'll find those darned WMD". Except, of course, that nobody questioned Blix's competence. They questioned his willingness, but not his competence. What was questioned was the ability of the UNMOVIC _process_ to find anything. The antiwar crowd kept pretending that Unmovic was a detection team, when it was really a verification team. It wasn't intended to find hidden things; it was designed to verify what Saddam Hussein was saying. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 01:45:06-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com>)


> From: "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> > Organization: AT&T Worldnet > Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.tv.angel > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:11:54 GMT > Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > > > Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... >> >> >> >> He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed > people >> who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various > mental >> and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', >> i.e. eugenics. >> >> The Nazis also systematically killed Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies, and >> homosexuals, all for reasons based in their racist ideology. Depending on >> which casualty estimates one believes, the total number of Nazi murders of >> non-Jews might equal or even exceed the number of Jews killed. >> >> Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering >> the other people who died as well. > > Thank you for being so patronising. Sorry you took it that way, i didn't mean it to be. I live in a US State in which a state senator (one of those at the state capitol, not one we send to Washington) recently made a public statement to the effect that homosexuals (among others) were making up the claim that they had been targets of Nazi 'cleansing' > So I misread "eugenic" for > "ethnic": it was very early in the morning. I thought that might be the case, which was why I posted. I suppose I should have stopped after the first para. But I'm glad I didn't because ... > For your information, the Germans are believed to have killed over > 18,000,000 people as part of their racial and eugenic cleansing (although > the number of eugenic killings were only a minor fraction of this and > applied only to Germans). This is a higher estimate than the ones I am most familiar with. Can you give a reference (honest request -- if there are more accurate estimates than the ones I have access to, I'd like to know). >Over 8,000,000 were Jews, which hardly makes > them the "primary target". If you have about 10 groups you are targeting, and one of those groups makes up 40%+ of the eventual victims while no other group makes up more than 25%, I am satisfied to call that large plurality a 'primary target.' You are of course entitled to set other standards for yourself. [snip of additional information which is stipulated as well known] I would make two additions: 1) the Nazis also depicted the Jews as an 'inferior' race. 2) the Nazis also used the US treatment of the Native peoples as a model and 'justification' for their policies. To save bandwith, I'll also respond to David here -- no I don't know how any of this is supposed to apply to the current situation in the mideast. Ed

2003-04-28 02:22:01-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Mark Evans wrote: > In alt.tv.angel Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > > "Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > > >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:18:00 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian > >> >dead. And one of the PLO's complaints whenever Israel demands that it shuts > >> >down the terrorist groups is that its police aren't given the powers to > >> >enforce such a decision. It tried to do so, before the current intifada, > >> >but the Israeli refusal to keep their side of the bargain (ending and > >> >withdrawing settlements), not to mention their continuing harassment of the > >> >Palestinians, meant that the police lost popular support after a few months > >> >of one-sided treaty-keeping. I remember thinking at the time that the > >> >Palestinians *couldn't* carry on in this farcical position. > >> > >> The bombings NEVER stopped. 260 Israelis killed between 1993 and 1998 > >> in terrorist attacks by Palestinian organizations. > >> > >> At BEST, the broken treaty is a chicken or egg scenario. Thats being > >> generous to the Palestinians. If the treaty calls for ending terrorist > >> attacks, and they do not end, what is the point? > > > Chicken or egg: The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory will never end > > until the terrorist attacks stop, and the terrorist attacks will not stop as long > > as Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. To end this catch 22 situation, we > > must cut through the Gordian Knot by sending in an International Peacemaking > > Force to replace the Israeli troops (thus removing any REASON to attack Israel) > > and crush any terrorists who insist on attacking Israel in spite of no longer > > having any reason to do so. > > They'd best be even handed and deal with the Israeli terrorist groups too. I agree to this amendment. > Not that attempting to "crush terrorists" is actually likely to work, unless > surrounding political issues are also addressed. My proposal includes removing the Israeli troops, which would count as "addressing surrounding political issues".

2003-04-28 02:40:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Mostly I want to know which ad agency marketed this war for "the > Coalition". It's all too slick... The decks of "most wanted" cards > disturb me... New Labour? They're certainly reminiscent of the 'pledge cards', on which were printed the '5 commandments' to which the manifesto was reduced, and by which the Labour government elected in 1997 wanted to be judged. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-28 02:50:37+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ebie wrote in message ... >Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: > >> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>invading. > >Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >further up your sleeve). And funny how the US refuses to admit the UN >inspectors back in -- whether to help look for the things, or to >verify the truth of claims of WMD. If it wasn't so sick it would crack >me up: the US insulted the crap out of Blix and UNMOVIC -- suggesting >that they were incompetent dupes, and *that* was the reason for not >finding WMD. >But now that the shoe's on the other foot, the US is >saying "huh, well just give us time, we'll find those darned WMD". > >This is hopefully my last followup to this thread, I'm trying to let >this go -- at least in here, these ng's are places I go to *escape* >from the bullshit of the world situation. But I'm like a dog with a >bone... > >Mostly I want to know which ad agency marketed this war for "the >Coalition". It's all too slick... The decks of "most wanted" cards >disturb me... They were a very rare stroke of bloody propaganda genius: it suggests that there are exactly 52 people Bush needs dead (as in "The Manchurian Candidate" you have to pick one number, any number, and stay with it). It shows them in a format that any yutz can accept and it gives US troops something "funny" to gamble with. Except they'd probably prefer cards with naked women. But that would be wrong.

2003-04-28 08:41:14+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 > 21:16:19 +0100, did you or did you not state: >>In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> Are you for real? You're the one being unreasonable becuase you've already >>> decided what you're going to believe and nothing will change your mind. >>> They aren't quoted out of context at all. The Gulf war ended in a cease >>> fire not a peace treaty. It was with the understanding that Iraq would meet >>> all of it's obligations as laid down in various UN resolutions. They did >> >>In which case it would be up to the UN to decide if *all* parties >>were complying and what to do if that didn't happen. >> >>> not. Instead, they ignored them and then the UN would just issue another >>> resolution, over and over again. >> >>That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain >>governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... > So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) > _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any > other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit > it to exercise. So why was the US whineing about Iraq not complying with UN resolutions. This argument applies equally to *any* sovereign nation. >>How is resuming hostilities not breaking a ceasefire. > When the government which was _allowed_ to survive under a ceasefire > agreement refuses to abide by the terms of the agreement, the other > side has _no_ obligation to continue the ceasefire. The ceasefire > ended due to IRAQ's refusal to comply with it. The US was *not* "the other side" in the first Gulf war anyway. >>There is also the strange situation of a "no fly zone" which >>involves the bombing of targets on the *ground*. Including >>anti-aircraft weapons. > What's strange about destroying anti-aircraft weapons that can (only) > be used against your own planes? Which are flying in a "no fly zone", if you accept that such entities exist. Alternativly they are violating Iraq's airspace and Iraq has the same rights as every other sovereign nation to deal with them. >>Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by >>throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed >>are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems >>designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further >>irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying >>in the "no fly zone". > It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ > aircraft. Problem was this was in IRAQI airspace, carried out without authority.

2003-04-28 08:47:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > "Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:18:00 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Err, Israel kills around 10 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian >> >dead. And one of the PLO's complaints whenever Israel demands that it shuts >> >down the terrorist groups is that its police aren't given the powers to >> >enforce such a decision. It tried to do so, before the current intifada, >> >but the Israeli refusal to keep their side of the bargain (ending and >> >withdrawing settlements), not to mention their continuing harassment of the >> >Palestinians, meant that the police lost popular support after a few months >> >of one-sided treaty-keeping. I remember thinking at the time that the >> >Palestinians *couldn't* carry on in this farcical position. >> >> The bombings NEVER stopped. 260 Israelis killed between 1993 and 1998 >> in terrorist attacks by Palestinian organizations. >> >> At BEST, the broken treaty is a chicken or egg scenario. Thats being >> generous to the Palestinians. If the treaty calls for ending terrorist >> attacks, and they do not end, what is the point? > Chicken or egg: The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory will never end > until the terrorist attacks stop, and the terrorist attacks will not stop as long > as Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. To end this catch 22 situation, we > must cut through the Gordian Knot by sending in an International Peacemaking > Force to replace the Israeli troops (thus removing any REASON to attack Israel) > and crush any terrorists who insist on attacking Israel in spite of no longer > having any reason to do so. They'd best be even handed and deal with the Israeli terrorist groups too. Not that attempting to "crush terrorists" is actually likely to work, unless surrounding political issues are also addressed.

2003-04-28 10:09:15-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 01:45:06 -0500, Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >> From: "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> >>> Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering >>> the other people who died as well. >> >> Thank you for being so patronising. > >Sorry you took it that way, i didn't mean it to be. I had to laugh reading Aethelrede complain of you being patronizing. Wasn't he just taking someone else to task and making a huge deal out of it for not spelling Israel correctly? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-28 11:31:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EACC3CB.45B952AA@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has the power >> >> to give or refuse "permission," but the action is "permitted" under >> >> Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means to >> >> uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant >> >> resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." >> >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, >> >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the purpose >> >of regime change? >> Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in the >> area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. >Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the Palestinians, >and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN resolutions demanding that Israel >get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out >the 678 and 660 mandate "to restore international peace and security in the >area."? Of course they _can._ Empirically, they wouldn't be very successful, and also empirically, they couldn't care less about Palestinians. Do you mean "May they do this?" In that case, sure. All they have to do is (1) Get the UN to write a resolution which demands that Israel get out of the West Bank. There is no such resolution; 242, which is the baseline resolution, says no such thing. (2) Redraw the map, since Israel is about 1000 miles from the area. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 11:33:58-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EACCD93.6790EABF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Secondly, do you not think the US obligated to follow the UN Charter, >> >as is every other member? >> Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a sovereign >> state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to be so, or to the >> extent a greater power forces it to be. >A U.S. attack against Iraq is against the supreme law of the United >States of America! >I. The UN Charter only permits the use of military force in 2 >circumstances: To defend against an actual or imminent attack, and when >the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain >or restore international peace and security. Neither of these >conditions applies to the U.S. war against Iraq. Iraq was not attacking >us or about to attack us, nor did the UN Security Council authorize >military action against Iraq. Therefore, the U.S. attack on Iraq >violates the UN Charter! >II. The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as >such forms part of the ���supreme law of the land��� under the Constitution, >Article VI, Clause 2. Moreover, the UN Charter is the highest treaty in >the world, superseding states��� conflicting obligations under any other >international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter). Therefore, violating >the UN Charter by attacking Iraq violates the supreme law of the >United States of America! QED. 1. The UN Security Council, of course, did authorize military action against Iraq. 2. Congress already passed a law authorizing the use of force against Iraq. They passed it last October, which needless to say is decades _after_ they ratified the UN charter. New laws supercede old ones. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 11:37:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EACC13D.90391566@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >A large small >number of Iraqis have been demonstrating, demanding that the U.S. get >out of Iraq. I believe that the U.S. should comply, so as to undercut the >budding anti-American movement. To replace the U.S. troops, I urge that the >U.S. ask democratic Muslim nations (such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh) >to send in peacekeeping troops under the umbrella of the United Nations to keep >law and order, start rebuilding Iraq, and assist the Iraqis towards democracy. What evidence is there that the UN is capable of doing any of these things? >I'm confident that the Iraqis will find troops from fellow Muslim nations much >less objectionable than troops from the nation that just bombed the tar out of >them! I'm equally confident that Iraqis will find troops from the US much less objectionable than troops from nations that wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 11:44:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EACC2BE.D7357280@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> >Ed Schoenfeld <ejschoenfeld@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >>Why did Osama start Al Quaeda? To protest the presen ce of US troops on >> >>Saudi soil >> >Actually, it was founded to remove non-muslims from muslim ground. >> >Which includes Americans from Saudi, Israelis from Israel, and many >> >more..... >> ...Timorese from East Timor. Spaniards from Spain. >Al-Qaida wants to expel Timorese from East Timor, and restore Indonesia's >brutal rule? They want to expel Spaniards from their own nation? When has >Al-Qaida said that they want to expel Timorese and Spaniards from their own >nations? Not exactly. They want to expel the Timorese and Spanish governments, not the Timorese and Spanish people. These lands were once ruled by Muslims -- it's been 600 years since Spain was, but when your civilization hasn't accomplished anything in centuries, you don't have much to do but look back -- and Islamist (note: not Islamic) theology is once-Muslim-land-always-Muslim-land. I'm sure if you do some googling you can find transcripts of Bin Laden's speeches that were released on tape. He addresses this. (Look at the wacky way they still rant about "crusaders.") --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 11:45:12-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EACC996.F699DA55@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >> >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >> Only a few Iraqi people. >I've seen CNN reports showing a whole crowd of Iraqis telling us to get >out. It looked like a crowd of at least several hundred. In my book, >several hundred is more than a few. Out of 24 million? It's a few. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 11:46:34-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (tiffanyanderson2u@yahoo.com)


Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3EACBDD3.4BEDFFF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>... > tiffanyanderson2u@yahoo.com wrote: > > > The Mitchells spotted Laci while Scott was fishing, all you National > > Enquirer subscribers should give all your cement theories a rest. > > Where did the Mitchells spot Laci? outside their home while she was walking her dog I think many people are seriously probing here: "Notice how everybody is terrified to reveal anything in this case. Amber pretends she did not know Scott was married, they found the body a long time ago but nobody wanted to claim credit. Something very FISHY, pardon the Pun ! Wasden said investigators intend to follow up leads to the rest of the remains. Will they be found.' Betcha they won't because there's a bullet hole in the skull. That's my DETECtive theory for the day:" http://www.1st.shorturl.com

2003-04-28 12:08:39-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <3EACCD93.6790EABF@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >>I. The UN Charter only permits the use of military force in 2 >>circumstances: To defend against an actual or imminent attack, and when >>the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain >>or restore international peace and security. Neither of these >>conditions applies to the U.S. war against Iraq. Iraq was not attacking >>us or about to attack us, nor did the UN Security Council authorize >>military action against Iraq. > >1. The UN Security Council, of course, did authorize military action >against Iraq. Not so much in 2003, of course. As a fallback position, the US chose to interpret the Kuwait ceasefire resolution as authorizing it, but to most of the world that looked like a pretty feeble rationale -- even the US' staunchest ally, Tony Blair, wanted a new resolution. And despite the Bushies' assertions, 1441 had no "automaticity" built into it, so it couldn't be used for the authorization they wanted. "Serious consequences" is not the same as "all necessary means", which is UNSC-speak for military force. And even the 'serious consequences' were supposed to be subsequent to a new meeting of the UNSC. So the US just said the hell with it, and did it anyway. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-28 13:09:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <ovtoavkasdl3l5kca0uo3j9soi05e5jp5e@4ax.com>, > Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: > >>> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>>invading. > >>Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >>(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >>scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >>further up your sleeve). > >Uh, yeah. It's always a good "propaganda tactic" to release information >that doesn't support your position and which is easily and swiftly >disproved. Whatever. Glad you thought that one through. It's a grand idea if your 'embedded' media outlets trumpet the false claims on page one and then -- maybe -- several days later report on page A23 or similar that the "chemical weapons labs" were just shipping containers. Meanwhile it's on to the next lie (retraction to follow in a few days, in fewer venues and in smaller type). Repeat as necessary. > >> And funny how the US refuses to admit the UN >>inspectors back in -- whether to help look for the things, or to >>verify the truth of claims of WMD. If it wasn't so sick it would crack >>me up: the US insulted the crap out of Blix and UNMOVIC -- suggesting >>that they were incompetent dupes, and *that* was the reason for not >>finding WMD. But now that the shoe's on the other foot, the US is >>saying "huh, well just give us time, we'll find those darned WMD". > >Except, of course, that nobody questioned Blix's competence. Depends who you mean by "nobody". http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/, entitled, "Hans Blix: Incompetent bureaucrat or cowardly diplomat?" quotes a *lot* of people heaping invective upon Hans. I can't find a Rummy quote on this, so maybe the White House kept its collective yap shut on the matter. >They >questioned his willingness, but not his competence. What was questioned >was the ability of the UNMOVIC _process_ to find anything. The antiwar >crowd kept pretending that Unmovic was a detection team, when it was really >a verification team. It wasn't intended to find hidden things; it was >designed to verify what Saddam Hussein was saying. UNMOVIC was there to implement (para 2) "an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;". I don't see anything in 1441 that limits UNMOVIC to merely "verifying" Iraqi claims. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-28 13:17:28-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <3EACC3CB.45B952AA@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >>Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the Palestinians, >>and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN resolutions demanding that Israel >>get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out >>the 678 and 660 mandate "to restore international peace and security in the >>area."? > >Of course they _can._ Empirically, they wouldn't be very successful, and >also empirically, they couldn't care less about Palestinians. > >Do you mean "May they do this?" In that case, sure. All they have to do >is > > (1) Get the UN to write a resolution which demands that Israel get out of >the West Bank. There is no such resolution; 242, which is the baseline >resolution, says no such thing. > True. 242 merely says that Israel has to get its *troops* out of the West Bank, and Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip, and Sinai, and East Jerusalem. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-28 13:37:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in news:3EACC3CB.45B952AA@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us: > > > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > >> In article <b8ceph$8kll8$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >> >> >> Not only can I, but I've done so many times. Not that the UN has >> >> the power to give or refuse "permission," but the action is >> >> "permitted" under Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use >> >> "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) >> >> and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore >> >> international peace and security in the area." >> >> >678 and 660 largely refer to the invasion of Kuwait... what part, >> >exactly, do you see as authorising an invasion of Iraq for the >> >purpose of regime change? >> >> Actually, it says, "to restore international peace and security in >> the area." Regime change happened to be the only way to do that. > > Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the > Palestinians, and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN > resolutions demanding that Israel get out of the West Bank and Gaza > Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out the 678 and 660 > mandate "to restore international peace and security in the area."? They could try, but the US would then class them as terrorists and bomb them...

2003-04-28 13:44:28-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <rpmqav0gj7rig55dqpds58mq1cnvsu9ik1@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >> Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: >>>> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>>>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>>>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>>>invading. >>>Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >>>(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >>>scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >>>further up your sleeve). >>Uh, yeah. It's always a good "propaganda tactic" to release information >>that doesn't support your position and which is easily and swiftly >>disproved. Whatever. Glad you thought that one through. >It's a grand idea if your 'embedded' media outlets trumpet the false >claims on page one and then -- maybe -- several days later report on >page A23 or similar that the "chemical weapons labs" were just >shipping containers. Meanwhile it's on to the next lie (retraction to >follow in a few days, in fewer venues and in smaller type). Repeat as >necessary. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" was a cautionary tale, not a propaganda strategy. Repeating a series of false alarms leads to people ignoring real discoveries. I find it interesting that the only example of "lying" we've seen was CNN's admission that they helped cover up the crimes of Saddam Hussein, and yet you're talking about "lies" because they say, "I see some suspicious drums, which have to be examined." (The _military_ doesn't say that; a reporter who sees them says that.) >>> And funny how the US refuses to admit the UN >>>inspectors back in -- whether to help look for the things, or to >>>verify the truth of claims of WMD. If it wasn't so sick it would crack >>>me up: the US insulted the crap out of Blix and UNMOVIC -- suggesting >>>that they were incompetent dupes, and *that* was the reason for not >>>finding WMD. But now that the shoe's on the other foot, the US is >>>saying "huh, well just give us time, we'll find those darned WMD". >>Except, of course, that nobody questioned Blix's competence. >Depends who you mean by "nobody". http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/, >entitled, "Hans Blix: Incompetent bureaucrat or cowardly diplomat?" >quotes a *lot* of people heaping invective upon Hans. I can't find a >Rummy quote on this, so maybe the White House kept its collective yap >shut on the matter. Although Sullentrop claims that the debate is between incompetence or cowardice, all of the quotes he cites question Blix's will, not his competence. (The only mention of competence is in pointing out his documented failures as head of the IAEA. That's not an insult; that's his resume.) >>They >>questioned his willingness, but not his competence. What was questioned >>was the ability of the UNMOVIC _process_ to find anything. The antiwar >>crowd kept pretending that Unmovic was a detection team, when it was really >>a verification team. It wasn't intended to find hidden things; it was >>designed to verify what Saddam Hussein was saying. >UNMOVIC was there to implement (para 2) "an enhanced inspection regime >with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the >disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and >subsequent resolutions of the council;". I don't see anything in 1441 >that limits UNMOVIC to merely "verifying" Iraqi claims. But you need to look at the "disarmanent process" being referenced. The process was a negative one. It wasn't up to UNMOVIC (or earlier UNSCOM) to prove that Saddam had stuff. It was up to Saddam to prove he didn't. Then UNMOVIC was to go verify that he had done what he claimed. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 13:48:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:fkboav0mb8qdot03jb4eer87jvcf7d1fge@4ax.com... > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:16:31 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yet you admit the Gulf war ended in a cease fire, NOT a peace treaty. > Strange. A cease fire actually means the war has not come to an end. It > didn't until Iraq met it's agreed upon obligations. That was not an "admission", LOL, just a statement of fact. Iraq/Kuwait conflict ended in a formal cease-fire. Why you don't define that as an end to the war is your problem, because it did in fact end the war. The only obligations attached to the agreement was the cease-fire itself. > >The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. > > And not a peace treaty. Hostilities could begin again at any time if Iraq > didn't meat their obligations. They didn't. Wrong. The only obligation of Iraq under that particular agreement was to refrain from further attacks on Kuwait. > >The no-fly zones are a contentious issue in their own right, but not > >the same as the invasion of Iraq. > > Nice dodge. The no-fly zones and periodic bombing of Iraqi targets were > enforcing the cease fire agreement. Ultimately, so was this. Are there > other reasons at work here for why we chose this time to do it? You betcha, > but that doesn't mean we didn't have the right. Can't help the fact that > France, Russia, Germany and others didn't want to enforce anything. We > didn't need them. The no-fly zones are not, and never have been, part of the UN-based cease-fire agreement. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-28 13:49:58-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:9deh8b.iv6.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > Odds on right now, in Pyongyang, government officials have the text > of and opinions on every resolution ever passed by the UN security > council to see if there is anything which can possibly be used against > the US... > > Officials in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh may well be doing the same. "If"?!?! > > Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, > > perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, but > > claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. > > The whole point of 660 and 678 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Tell that to EGK who apparently has a very... imaginative... interpretation of the past. -- They're called FRENCH fries, dammit, stop being childish.

2003-04-28 14:04:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:49:58 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:9deh8b.iv6.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... > >> Odds on right now, in Pyongyang, government officials have the text >> of and opinions on every resolution ever passed by the UN security >> council to see if there is anything which can possibly be used >against >> the US... >> >> Officials in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh may well be doing the same. > >"If"?!?! > >> > Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, >> > perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, >but >> > claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. >> >> The whole point of 660 and 678 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. > >Tell that to EGK who apparently has a very... imaginative... >interpretation of the past. Earlier resolutions then 1441 were created AFTER we had already gotten Iraq out of Kuwait. They were designed to keep Iraq in check so it was no longer a threat to it's neighbors or in the case of the no fly zones, a threat to the Kurdish population within Iraq or fly overs. Can't help it that the US and the British were the only ones who wanted to put some teeth in to those resolutions and demand Iraq meet the agreed upon conditions. Face it, the UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in all this and he played them like a cheap banjo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-28 14:45:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <rpmqav0gj7rig55dqpds58mq1cnvsu9ik1@4ax.com>, > Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >>> Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: > >>>>> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>>>>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>>>>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>>>>invading. > >>>>Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >>>>(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >>>>scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >>>>further up your sleeve). > >>>Uh, yeah. It's always a good "propaganda tactic" to release information >>>that doesn't support your position and which is easily and swiftly >>>disproved. Whatever. Glad you thought that one through. > >>It's a grand idea if your 'embedded' media outlets trumpet the false >>claims on page one and then -- maybe -- several days later report on >>page A23 or similar that the "chemical weapons labs" were just >>shipping containers. Meanwhile it's on to the next lie (retraction to >>follow in a few days, in fewer venues and in smaller type). Repeat as >>necessary. > >"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" was a cautionary tale, not a propaganda strategy. >Repeating a series of false alarms leads to people ignoring real >discoveries. > >I find it interesting that the only example of "lying" we've seen was CNN's >admission that they helped cover up the crimes of Saddam Hussein, and yet >you're talking about "lies" because they say, "I see some suspicious drums, >which have to be examined." (The _military_ doesn't say that; a reporter >who sees them says that.) CNN's admission is *far* from the only fake 'smoking gun' paraded across our screens and tabloid fronts. I'm talking about the Scuds That Weren't, The Suspicious Boxes of White Powder, The Buried Chemical Weapons Labs That Were Really Shipping Containers and similar items reported by the media. That's what I'm calling propaganda. We don't have actual, literal State-sponsored media networks (unless you count Fox News :), so the commercial ones have to do. If you need actual false US government utterances (which was not what I was talking about), they're there too -- from falsified Nigerian documents re uranium sales, to plagiarized 10 year-old reports, to the bogus Iraq-Al Qaida connection, to the *many* irrelevent statistics President Bush recited during his national television address regarding Iraqi WMD. I consider it a major propaganda victory that in March of this year a poll showed 45% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the 9/11 attacks. The government didn't bother to correct that mistake, nor did the mainstream media. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-28 15:46:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <31rj8b.spb.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> Mark Evans wrote: >>> Not that attempting to "crush terrorists" is actually likely to work, >>> unless surrounding political issues are also addressed. >> My proposal includes removing the Israeli troops, which would count as >> "addressing surrounding political issues". >There are also matters of access to natural resources. When Israel overran >the borders the UN had drawn up it also took control of most of the sources >of drinking water in the former Mandate. >The "settlers" would also have to go. So Mark's in favor of ethnic cleansing of Jews. What a surprise. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 15:52:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8jpqk$aq56r$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Yet you admit the Gulf war ended in a cease fire, NOT a peace treaty. >> Strange. A cease fire actually means the war has not come to an end. It >> didn't until Iraq met it's agreed upon obligations. >That was not an "admission", LOL, just a statement of fact. >Iraq/Kuwait conflict ended in a formal cease-fire. Why you don't >define that as an end to the war is your problem, because it did in >fact end the war. The only obligations attached to the agreement was >the cease-fire itself. Incorrect. There's a reason why we use a clumsy term like "cease-fire" instead of peace. A cease-fire is a *suspension* of hostilities, not a termination of hostilities. The difference is that the former is conditional, by definition. It's dependent on satisfactory performance. >> >The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire, period. >> And not a peace treaty. Hostilities could begin again at any time >> if Iraq didn't meat their obligations. They didn't. >Wrong. The only obligation of Iraq under that particular agreement >was to refrain from further attacks on Kuwait. Wrong. Sheesh, in your world it would be great to be a dictator. Start a war, seize property, territory, kill people, and then when others defeat you in the war, claim that you don't have any obligations except not to attack again. >> >The no-fly zones are a contentious issue in their own right, but not >> >the same as the invasion of Iraq. >> Nice dodge. The no-fly zones and periodic bombing of Iraqi targets were >> enforcing the cease fire agreement. Ultimately, so was this. Are there >> other reasons at work here for why we chose this time to do it? You betcha, >> but that doesn't mean we didn't have the right. Can't help the fact that >> France, Russia, Germany and others didn't want to enforce anything. We >> didn't need them. >The no-fly zones are not, and never have been, part of the UN-based >cease-fire agreement. They exist, of course, to *enforce* the agreement. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 16:11:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <f7oqav4fuaakquc6a26b3l43u76q8jnhmc@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >>>Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the Palestinians, >>>and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN resolutions demanding that Israel >>>get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out >>>the 678 and 660 mandate "to restore international peace and security in the >>>area."? >>Of course they _can._ Empirically, they wouldn't be very successful, and >>also empirically, they couldn't care less about Palestinians. >>Do you mean "May they do this?" In that case, sure. All they have to do >>is >> (1) Get the UN to write a resolution which demands that Israel get out of >>the West Bank. There is no such resolution; 242, which is the baseline >>resolution, says no such thing. >True. 242 merely says that Israel has to get its *troops* out of the >West Bank, and Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip, and Sinai, and East >Jerusalem. False. You've never read it, have you? It Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: * Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; * Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Affirms further the necessity * For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; * For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; * For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; Note that (A) These are principles which should underlie the peace, *NOT* specific commands. (B) The first item there does NOT say "withdrawal... from all territories occupied." That was in the original draft resolution, but the word "all" was removed as a result of negotiations before the final one was passed. That was a specific matter of debate; the Soviets and the Arab states wanted the word "all" precisely because, as the Soviet ambassador said, the omission of the word meant that part of the territories could be retained by Israel. (C) It has mutuality built in; it calls for performance on both sides. Not just Israel's. Israel proposed a peaceful resolution, but at the '67 Khartoum meeting of the Arab League, that proposal was rejected, and the "three nos" policy was established: no to recognition of Israel, no to negotiations with Israel, and no to peace with Israel. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 18:37:52+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <3EACC13D.90391566@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >> A large > > small > >> number of Iraqis have been demonstrating, demanding that the U.S. get >> out of Iraq. I believe that the U.S. should comply, so as to >> undercut the budding anti-American movement. Dozens of people were in the square when Saddam's statue was pulled down. Thousands were demonstrating in Mosul, of which around a dozen were killed by US soldiers, a similar death toll to the 'Bloody Sunday' incident which sparked a 20 year campaign by the Provisional IRA. Do your news sources report any of this? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-28 18:43:32+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> >> Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a >> sovereign state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to >> be so, or to the extent a greater power forces it to be. > > A U.S. attack against Iraq is against the supreme law of the United > States of America! > > I. The UN Charter only permits the use of military force in 2 > circumstances: To defend against an actual or imminent attack, and > when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to > maintain or restore international peace and security. [snip] > II. The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and > as such forms part of the 'supreme law of the land' under the > Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. Please read Nieporent's other posts. A treaty is but a piece of paper, even if signed by the USA. It has no connection with reality. Please learn to distinguish between treaties and what the US is allowed to do. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-28 18:49:12-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:20:19 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > >The US media is indeed biased. > >> >> They did not even report the fact that 1000 Israelis were late to work >> at the WTC on 9/11 because they had advance knowledge of the attacks!! >> Do you get this??? 1000 Israeli citizens were ACCOMPLICES in the 9/11 >> attacks!! So much for 9/11 being am Israeli GOVERNMENT conspiracy!! It >> extends to thousands of average Israeli citzens!! > >Where did you read about the above? Can you provide a web link? The above crap is evidence cited by Mark Evans blaming Israel for 9/11. I MOST CERTAINLY have no links to any of this BS. Ask Mark. > >> Nor did they report the police who look the other way when Isaeli >> terrorists carry out operations in the USA!! I guess they do not want >> us to know that police nationwide are under strict orders to permit >> Israeli terrorists to carry out their operations in the USA..... >> >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed >> with box knives. What does this imply?? > >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! > Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure and simple. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-28 18:56:14-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:31:27 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:55:55 +0100, Mark Evans >> <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> >Repeating press releases, especially from entities which have a vested >> >interest in things being reported to suit them, is hardly reporting >> >on the facts. >> >Reporters embedded with soilders are hardly likely to be able to report >> >the facts accuratly, even if they want to. >> > >> >> And the US media didnt even repeat the press releases about those 1000 >> Israelis at the WTC who were late to work on 9/11!! >> >> Or that Israeli commando on one of the hijacked planes!! >> >> In fact, they did not even mention the woman at an airport in NYC who >> was caught with terrorist materials, only to be released immediately >> upon flashing her Israeli passport!!! >> >> Any news organization that would not report any of those OBVIOUSLY >> true stories MUST be biased!!! >> >> I ask you for the 50th time, WHY were those stories not reported in >> the USA?? > >In which nations were these stories reported? I would like to read those >stories myself. Just like I said in my other reply, ask Mark. They are HIS stories. I have no clue. I would try news sources in Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Saudi, and Syria. Also, you should try "progressive" news web sites. These are sites run by loony cases who post random crap that pops into their heads. People like Mark Evans come along, and think it is true. Evans DID read this shit, somewhere. I HAVE heard most of his loony claims before. He is just the only one on BtVS that I know of who is gullible enough to believe them. Anyway, I refer you to Mark Evans for further questions on the above 'stories'. Regards, Stimpson >

2003-04-28 18:58:06-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:50:53 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >A large number of Iraqis have been demonstrating, demanding that the U.S. get >out of Iraq. I believe that the U.S. should comply, so as to undercut the >budding anti-American movement. To replace the U.S. troops, I urge that the >U.S. ask democratic Muslim nations (such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh) >to send in peacekeeping troops under the umbrella of the United Nations to keep >law and order, start rebuilding Iraq, and assist the Iraqis towards democracy. >I'm confident that the Iraqis will find troops from fellow Muslim nations much >less objectionable than troops from the nation that just bombed the tar out of >them! > Not a bad plan, IF nations such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh have: A- The resources (they don't) B - The desire (they probably don't) Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-28 18:58:27+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> David Marc Nieporent wrote: >>> >>> Obligated? Of course not. The US, like all countries, is a >>> sovereign state. It is obligated only to the extent it chooses to >>> be so, or to the extent a greater power forces it to be. >> >> A U.S. attack against Iraq is against the supreme law of the United >> States of America! >> >> I. The UN Charter only permits the use of military force in 2 >> circumstances: To defend against an actual or imminent attack, and >> when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to >> maintain or restore international peace and security. > [snip] >> II. The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and >> as such forms part of the 'supreme law of the land' under the >> Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. > Please read Nieporent's other posts. A treaty is but a piece of paper, even > if signed by the USA. It has no connection with reality. Please learn to Unless the US wants it enforced, in that case it's binding... > distinguish between treaties and what the US is allowed to do. Also remember that the US government is not above considering the US Constitution also to be a "piece of paper", especially when the US populace dosn't appear to be that interested in enforcing it.

2003-04-28 19:01:41-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:33:54 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >Israeli repression of the Palestinians provokes suicide terrorists, which >provokes further Israeli repression. I believe that this cycle will continue as >long as Israeli troops are in any part of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To end >the violence, we must cut though the Gordon Knot (of Israeli occupation >provoking terrorist attacks, and terrorist attacks provoking Israeli repression >and further occupation). > Good lord, Tim. If it were THAT easy, the problem would have been solved years ago. The problem is that Arab terrorist groups consider ALL of Israel to be 'occupied territory'. They fight for the destruction of Israel. Not just the removal of IDF troops from Gaza and the WB. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-28 19:07:20+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >>In article <ovtoavkasdl3l5kca0uo3j9soi05e5jp5e@4ax.com>, >> Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Thus spake "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>: >> >>>> And now that a few barrels of "toxic sludge" (that's how Reuters >>>>described it), of unknown age, have been discovered, the official story will >>>>be that, finally, real WMDs have been found, so the US was justified in >>>>invading. >> >>>Funny how none of the other "smoking guns" turned out to be real >>>(well, not so funny -- it's a propaganda tactic, keep everyone >>>scrambling to disprove the most recent lie while meanwhile moving hand >>>further up your sleeve). >> >>Uh, yeah. It's always a good "propaganda tactic" to release information >>that doesn't support your position and which is easily and swiftly >>disproved. Whatever. Glad you thought that one through. > It's a grand idea if your 'embedded' media outlets trumpet the false > claims on page one and then -- maybe -- several days later report on > page A23 or similar that the "chemical weapons labs" were just > shipping containers. Meanwhile it's on to the next lie (retraction to > follow in a few days, in fewer venues and in smaller type). Repeat as > necessary. With the TV alternative being to make a big fuss about the find all day. And say something along the lines of "by the way those supposed WMD's turned out to be harmless" once at around 3 am. Of course the "possible WMD find" is trumpeted. Whereas an independent jornalist would probably report something along the lines of "The US again *claims* to have found something. Pending tests to be sure it isn't weedkiller, insecticide, industrial waste or any of the other false alarms they've had so far." (Given that the US has "cried wolf" so many times.)

2003-04-28 19:13:55+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > Mark Evans wrote: >> Not that attempting to "crush terrorists" is actually likely to work, unless >> surrounding political issues are also addressed. > My proposal includes removing the Israeli troops, which would count as "addressing > surrounding political issues". There are also matters of access to natural resources. When Israel overran the borders the UN had drawn up it also took control of most of the sources of drinking water in the former Mandate. The "settlers" would also have to go. Another factor is the ability of any Palestinian state to be secure. Otherwise all it would take is a change of political will on Israel's part and the troops come back in.

2003-04-28 19:18:24-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:07:20 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >With the TV alternative being to make a big fuss about the find all >day. And say something along the lines of "by the way those supposed >WMD's turned out to be harmless" once at around 3 am. Of course the >"possible WMD find" is trumpeted. > Yeah, and then on top of that, they don't report about the 1000 Israelis late to work at the WTC on 9/11 at all!!! Nor do they mention the Israelis caught with terrorist materials in NYC, only to be immediately released by the officers upon flashing an Israeli passoport. Damn American media. Give me good old state run Iraqi TV anyday!! >Whereas an independent jornalist would probably report something >along the lines of "The US again *claims* to have found something. >Pending tests to be sure it isn't weedkiller, insecticide, industrial >waste or any of the other false alarms they've had so far." >(Given that the US has "cried wolf" so many times.) The reports I've seen have been EXACTLY like this. Don't know what stations YOU people are watching! Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-28 19:58:48-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:47:17 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> >> Yeah, and then on top of that, they don't report about the 1000 >> Israelis late to work at the WTC on 9/11 at all!!! > >Why do you go on about false stories which the media don't report? Are we >supposed to be surprised by it? Compare with Nieporen's dismissal of the >protesting crowds as 'few', even though they outnumber the famed Saddam >statue-demolishers hundredfold and more. Does the US media cover them? Because there are some among us who have stated these stupid stories as true. I did not make them up. Mark Evans DOES believe the crazy stories I keep mentioning. Why do I keep repeating them, you ask? I repeat them because they are a VERY big clue as to the state of Mr. Evans' mind. Anybody who would grasp at such rediculous straws to show Israelis and Jews as villains does so for one reason. HATE. Not reasoned rationale or logic, but HATE. Pure and simple. There is no other possible explanation. The reply was not to you. It was to Mark Evans. I would like Mr. Evans to finally address his outrageous claims. He never has. I guess he never will. > >And in case you wish to lambast me for reading biased reports, my preferred >news sources are the BBC, Reuters and Agence France Presse. > Okay. Whatever. I DO think you are reading biased reports, but I was NOT lambasting you. Regards, Stimpson >Cheers, ymt. > >

2003-04-28 20:06:46-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:57:28 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> >> Good lord, Tim. If it were THAT easy, the problem would have been >> solved years ago. >> >> The problem is that Arab terrorist groups consider ALL of Israel to be >> 'occupied territory'. They fight for the destruction of Israel. Not >> just the removal of IDF troops from Gaza and the WB. > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,944499,00.html > >[excerpt] > >Taysir Nasrallah, a Fatah activist in Nablus, said it sometimes felt as if >he were inhabiting a different planet from the Palestinian leadership in >Ramallah. > >'People here continue to suffer every day. They will not easily give up >their sacrifices without a reward. The settlements need to be dismantled and >Israeli forces must withdraw to their 1967 borders. As I said before, at the Camp David Summit in 2000, a deal was on the table which DID have Israel withdrawing to the green line. All settlements outside this territory were to be dismantled. Arafat refused the deal. > >'If the siege and occupation are lifted and the killings stop, the people >will support anyone and any plan. But if the Palestinian Authority just >becomes an accessory of the Israeli security apparatus, there will only be >anger.' > The PEOPLE will. Will Hamas? Will Hezbollah? >Cheres, ymt. > > Has this thread gone on long enough yet? It's like 500 plus posts now. Damn that Bruening fellow! Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-28 21:31:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <WWira.56379$cO3.3805461@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Eventually every Internet debate with political content or mentioning >war or Israel turns to Hitler and the Nazis. > Stalin killed far more people for mostly political reasons, most of them >citizens of the USSR, but since he was one of the allies in WW II he only >got good publicity, and by the time the cold war got going it was ancient >history. > It does indicate that even a godless communist mega-murderer can be seen >as "nice uncle Joe" if the USA wants him to look like a good friend and >ally. Actually, it does indicate that you really hate the United States. Which again raises the question of what you're doing here. Everything you wrote above -- except the part about Stalin killing people -- is false. Stalin got awful "publicity," except during WW2, and of course by the time the cold war got going it wasn't ancient history at all. It was only the left that was apologizing for Stalin, not the US. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-28 22:55:34-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:41:14 +0100, did you or did you not state: >In alt.tv.angel Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 >>>That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain >>>governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... > >> So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) >> _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any >> other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit >> it to exercise. > >This argument applies equally to *any* sovereign nation. Only if all those other sovereign nations have lost a war and agreed to abide by the terms dictated by the victors as a condition of ending the fighting. >> What's strange about destroying anti-aircraft weapons that can (only) >> be used against your own planes? > >Which are flying in a "no fly zone", if you accept that such >entities exist. Obviously they do, as numerous downed Iraqi aircraft, destroyed for violating said no-fly zone, clearly demonstrate. > Alternativly they are violating Iraq's airspace >and Iraq has the same rights as every other sovereign nation to >deal with them. Except that they don't. Conditions imposed by the victors in the first Gulf War trump their sovereignty. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Iraq gambled and lost. >>>Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by >>>throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed >>>are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems >>>designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further >>>irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying >>>in the "no fly zone". > >> It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ >> aircraft. > >Problem was this was in IRAQI airspace, carried out without authority. Iraqi airspace--so what? They lost the authority to make those decisions when they a) lost the first Gulf War and b) agreed to abide by the rules set by the victors. Victors who have that authority by right of victory. -- "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see." "_Real_ things?" --Egg Shen and Jack Burton

2003-04-28 23:37:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... > > >> From: "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> >> Organization: AT&T Worldnet >> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,alt.tv.angel >> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:11:54 GMT >> Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >> >> >> Ed Schoenfeld wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>> >>> He is referring to the fact that the Nazis also systematically killed >> people >>> who were ethnically German (i.e. not Jews), but suffered from various >> mental >>> and physical disabilities, all in the interests of 'purifying the race', >>> i.e. eugenics. >>> >>> The Nazis also systematically killed Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies, and >>> homosexuals, all for reasons based in their racist ideology. Depending on >>> which casualty estimates one believes, the total number of Nazi murders of >>> non-Jews might equal or even exceed the number of Jews killed. >>> >>> Clearly, the Jews were the Nazis primary target, but its worth remembering >>> the other people who died as well. >> >> Thank you for being so patronising. > >Sorry you took it that way, i didn't mean it to be. > >I live in a US State in which a state senator (one of those at the state >capitol, not one we send to Washington) recently made a public statement to >the effect that homosexuals (among others) were making up the claim that >they had been targets of Nazi 'cleansing' > >> So I misread "eugenic" for >> "ethnic": it was very early in the morning. > >I thought that might be the case, which was why I posted. I suppose I >should have stopped after the first para. But I'm glad I didn't because ... > > >> For your information, the Germans are believed to have killed over >> 18,000,000 people as part of their racial and eugenic cleansing (although >> the number of eugenic killings were only a minor fraction of this and >> applied only to Germans). > >This is a higher estimate than the ones I am most familiar with. Can you >give a reference (honest request -- if there are more accurate estimates >than the ones I have access to, I'd like to know). > > >>Over 8,000,000 were Jews, which hardly makes >> them the "primary target". > >If you have about 10 groups you are targeting, and one of those groups makes >up 40%+ of the eventual victims while no other group makes up more than 25%, >I am satisfied to call that large plurality a 'primary target.' You are of >course entitled to set other standards for yourself. > >[snip of additional information which is stipulated as well known] > >I would make two additions: > >1) the Nazis also depicted the Jews as an 'inferior' race. > >2) the Nazis also used the US treatment of the Native peoples as a model and >'justification' for their policies. > >To save bandwith, I'll also respond to David here -- no I don't know how any >of this is supposed to apply to the current situation in the mideast. Eventually every Internet debate with political content or mentioning war or Israel turns to Hitler and the Nazis. Stalin killed far more people for mostly political reasons, most of them citizens of the USSR, but since he was one of the allies in WW II he only got good publicity, and by the time the cold war got going it was ancient history. It does indicate that even a godless communist mega-murderer can be seen as "nice uncle Joe" if the USA wants him to look like a good friend and ally.

2003-04-29 01:47:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > Yeah, and then on top of that, they don't report about the 1000 > Israelis late to work at the WTC on 9/11 at all!!! Why do you go on about false stories which the media don't report? Are we supposed to be surprised by it? Compare with Nieporen's dismissal of the protesting crowds as 'few', even though they outnumber the famed Saddam statue-demolishers hundredfold and more. Does the US media cover them? And in case you wish to lambast me for reading biased reports, my preferred news sources are the BBC, Reuters and Agence France Presse. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-29 01:57:28+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > Good lord, Tim. If it were THAT easy, the problem would have been > solved years ago. > > The problem is that Arab terrorist groups consider ALL of Israel to be > 'occupied territory'. They fight for the destruction of Israel. Not > just the removal of IDF troops from Gaza and the WB. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,944499,00.html [excerpt] Taysir Nasrallah, a Fatah activist in Nablus, said it sometimes felt as if he were inhabiting a different planet from the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. 'People here continue to suffer every day. They will not easily give up their sacrifices without a reward. The settlements need to be dismantled and Israeli forces must withdraw to their 1967 borders. 'If the siege and occupation are lifted and the killings stop, the people will support anyone and any plan. But if the Palestinian Authority just becomes an accessory of the Israeli security apparatus, there will only be anger.' Cheres, ymt.

2003-04-29 03:08:04-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk)


Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<ek4savggkdmm3vc3l8losrtuk0abjplnqc@4ax.com>... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Mon, 28 Apr 2003 > 08:41:14 +0100, did you or did you not state: > > >In alt.tv.angel Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 > > >>>That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain > >>>governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... > > >> So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) > >> _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any > >> other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit > >> it to exercise. > > > >This argument applies equally to *any* sovereign nation. > > Only if all those other sovereign nations have lost a war and agreed > to abide by the terms dictated by the victors as a condition of ending > the fighting. > > >> What's strange about destroying anti-aircraft weapons that can (only) > >> be used against your own planes? > > > >Which are flying in a "no fly zone", if you accept that such > >entities exist. > > Obviously they do, as numerous downed Iraqi aircraft, destroyed for > violating said no-fly zone, clearly demonstrate. > > > Alternativly they are violating Iraq's airspace > >and Iraq has the same rights as every other sovereign nation to > >deal with them. > > Except that they don't. Conditions imposed by the victors in the > first Gulf War trump their sovereignty. You pays your money and you > takes your chances. Iraq gambled and lost. > > >>>Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by > >>>throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed > >>>are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems > >>>designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further > >>>irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying > >>>in the "no fly zone". > > >> It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ > >> aircraft. > > > >Problem was this was in IRAQI airspace, carried out without authority. > > Iraqi airspace--so what? They lost the authority to make those > decisions when they a) lost the first Gulf War and b) agreed to abide > by the rules set by the victors. Victors who have that authority by > right of victory. Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed protesters? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the soldiers opened fire. Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-29 08:01:10+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:49:58 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>"Mark Evans" <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:9deh8b.iv6.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk... >> >>> Odds on right now, in Pyongyang, government officials have the text >>> of and opinions on every resolution ever passed by the UN security >>> council to see if there is anything which can possibly be used >>against >>> the US... >>> >>> Officials in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh may well be doing the same. >> >>"If"?!?! >> >>> > Perhaps you actually believe 1441 allowed the US to invade Iraq, >>> > perhaps you don't. If you care to debate that I might indulge you, >>but >>> > claims that 660/678 allowed the current invasion are laughable. >>> >>> The whole point of 660 and 678 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. >> >>Tell that to EGK who apparently has a very... imaginative... >>interpretation of the past. > Earlier resolutions then 1441 were created AFTER we had already gotten Iraq > out of Kuwait. They were designed to keep Iraq in check so it was no longer > a threat to it's neighbors or in the case of the no fly zones, a threat to In which case the UN might well listen rather more to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. As opposed to some countries thousands of miles away from Iraq. > the Kurdish population within Iraq or fly overs. > Can't help it that the US and the British were the only ones who wanted to > put some teeth in to those resolutions and demand Iraq meet the agreed upon It's the UN's choice what "teeth" to apply to their resolutions. Having any country decide how to enforce UN resolutions would be a very bad idea. Especially when one of those countries is itself in volation of UN resolutions. > conditions. Face it, the UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in all this > and he played them like a cheap banjo. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-29 08:12:33+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Eventually every Internet debate with political content or mentioning > war or Israel turns to Hitler and the Nazis. > Stalin killed far more people for mostly political reasons, most of them > citizens of the USSR, but since he was one of the allies in WW II he only Not only is a lot less fuss made of Stalin's victims than Hilter's victims no-one goes around dividing these people in to "Jews" and "non-Jews". > got good publicity, and by the time the cold war got going it was ancient > history.

2003-04-29 09:21:32-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >In article <f7oqav4fuaakquc6a26b3l43u76q8jnhmc@4ax.com>, > Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>Thus spake David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>: >>> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >>>>Now could Arab nations invade Israel to end its oppression of the Palestinians, >>>>and claim that they are doing so to enforce UN resolutions demanding that Israel >>>>get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also claim that they are carrying out >>>>the 678 and 660 mandate "to restore international peace and security in the >>>>area."? > >>>Of course they _can._ Empirically, they wouldn't be very successful, and >>>also empirically, they couldn't care less about Palestinians. > >>>Do you mean "May they do this?" In that case, sure. All they have to do >>>is > >>> (1) Get the UN to write a resolution which demands that Israel get out of >>>the West Bank. There is no such resolution; 242, which is the baseline >>>resolution, says no such thing. > >>True. 242 merely says that Israel has to get its *troops* out of the >>West Bank, and Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip, and Sinai, and East >>Jerusalem. > >False. You've never read it, have you? Oddly enough, I actually had, of course. > > Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the > establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which > should include the application of both the following principles: > > * Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied > in the recent conflict; Your point about the word "all" being missing from the above clause is well-taken. > (B) The first item there does NOT say "withdrawal... from all territories >occupied." That was in the original draft resolution, but the word "all" >was removed as a result of negotiations before the final one was passed. >That was a specific matter of debate; the Soviets and the Arab states >wanted the word "all" precisely because, as the Soviet ambassador said, the >omission of the word meant that part of the territories could be retained >by Israel. And apparently that's what has happened. -- Q: How can you tell Ari Fleischer is lying? A: His lips are moving.

2003-04-29 10:29:34-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via Google) wrote: >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >protesters? >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >soldiers opened fire. > >Caroline >No to the Profits of Doom I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so and we all know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions later, right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-29 10:57:50-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Caffeine Cal via Google wrote: > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<ek4savggkdmm3vc3l8losrtuk0abjplnqc@4ax.com>... >>>>It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ >>>>aircraft. >>> >>>Problem was this was in IRAQI airspace, carried out without authority. >> >>Iraqi airspace--so what? They lost the authority to make those >>decisions when they a) lost the first Gulf War and b) agreed to abide >>by the rules set by the victors. Victors who have that authority by >>right of victory. > > Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > protesters? What does that have to do with no-fly zones? (But despite the irrelevance of this issue to the argument over no-fly zones, no. It doesn't give them the right to murder unarmed protester. If, in fact, murder was done, I'd support prosecuting the people involved.)

2003-04-29 11:02:06-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


David Cheatham wrote: > Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is > violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, > and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of > it. No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all the authorization we needed. Nothing in that resolution said that it would have to be the _UN_ that inflicted those consequences. It _could_ have been, but the UN chose to make itself irrelevant. > We can, being a soveign nation, do whatever the hell we want to, but we > don't magically get UN authorization invade nations because at some point > in the past we had UN authorization to invade them for a completely > different reason on behalf of a nation that doesn't care anymore. We didn't need "magical" UN authorization. We had _actual_ UN authorization obtained just last year.

2003-04-29 11:05:16-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


David Cheatham wrote: > In article <nieporen-AD7C7A.12152129042003@news.fu-berlin.de>, > nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > <rant> > Airline passenger security is, and always will be, a joke. The correct > thing is to simply have people who will not be taken hostage, and people > who will not hesitate to attack people who are holding hostages. > > This world would work a lot better if, when someone took a hostage, we > immediately tried to kill them regardless of the hostage's wellbeing. > > Yes, we'd end up with a few more dead hostages, at first. And then none > ever again, as taking hostages just gets you killed, or arrested for > murder in addition to whatever other crime you were committing. > > The same thing with kidnapping and blackmail, actually. > </rant> Well, we agree on this one at least. Israel still contends with terrorists and bombings, but nobody tries to take hostages there any more. And for one very simple reason: it doesn't work. They come in and they kill you. They'll try to rescue the hostages if they can, but their first priority is turning the bad guys into ex-hostage takers.

2003-04-29 11:40:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <6bfravkj5patrk2jqa80cfo9pfqhng2j17@4ax.com>, house@next.tuesday says... > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:20:19 -0700, Tim Bruening > <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > > > >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > > > >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the > >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An > >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed > >> with box knives. What does this imply?? > > > >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! > > > Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure > and simple. While I hate to encourage you to keep reporting this claims of thins Mark Evans said without documentation, I have to remind everyone that the 'box cutters' are really just a myth promoted by the airlines. The hijackers probably had real knifes, and possibly some guns. The airlines, though, are studiously pretending it was a failure to create the correct rules, instead of just airline security being poor. -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-29 12:15:21-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <MPG.191866ea8bc054149896bf@130.133.1.4>, David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com> wrote: >house@next.tuesday says... >> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: >> >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the >> >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An >> >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed >> >> with box knives. What does this imply?? >> >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! >> Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure >> and simple. >While I hate to encourage you to keep reporting this claims of thins Mark >Evans said without documentation, I have to remind everyone that the 'box >cutters' are really just a myth promoted by the airlines. >The hijackers probably had real knifes, and possibly some guns. The >airlines, though, are studiously pretending it was a failure to create >the correct rules, instead of just airline security being poor. The airlines are in no more position to know than anybody else -- and it was the government, not the airlines, who originally said this. The box cutters aren't a "myth" -- that implies that it's false -- but speculation. *One* communication -- Barbara Olsen's -- from *one* plane mentioned box cutters, and people just assumed. On another flight, a passenger reported a rumor that someone had been "knived." But Mark's silliness about the gunshot is also fictional; that comes from an early 9/11 FAA _draft_ memo that was never published. Nobody has ever said that there was a gunshot. Not in any of the phone calls, not in any communication. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-29 12:47:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <ek4savggkdmm3vc3l8losrtuk0abjplnqc@4ax.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Mon, 28 Apr 2003 > 08:41:14 +0100, did you or did you not state: > > >In alt.tv.angel Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, on or about Sun, 27 Apr 2003 > > >>>That's the UN's perogative. So the UN didn't do what certain > >>>governments wanted it to do. That's just too bad... > > > >> So the US-led coalition went ahead without the UN. Which was (and is) > >> _their_ perogative. The UN has no legal authority over the US (or any > >> other nation) except what those sovereign nations _choose_ to permit > >> it to exercise. > > > >This argument applies equally to *any* sovereign nation. > > Only if all those other sovereign nations have lost a war and agreed > to abide by the terms dictated by the victors as a condition of ending > the fighting. The terms dictated by the UN, you mean? > > Alternativly they are violating Iraq's airspace > >and Iraq has the same rights as every other sovereign nation to > >deal with them. > > Except that they don't. Conditions imposed by the victors in the > first Gulf War trump their sovereignty. You pays your money and you > takes your chances. Iraq gambled and lost. I don't know what was going through their minds, invading Kuwait again like that. > >>>Let's see if this is right: A "no fly zone" is enforced by > >>>throwing high explosives at things which arn't flying, indeed > >>>are incapable of flight. Some of these are weapons systems > >>>designed to destroy aircraft in the air. Then to add further > >>>irony this whole operation is carried out by aircraft flying > >>>in the "no fly zone". > > > >> It's a "no fly zone" for IRAQI aircraft, pinhead. Enforced by _our_ > >> aircraft. > > > >Problem was this was in IRAQI airspace, carried out without authority. > > Iraqi airspace--so what? They lost the authority to make those > decisions when they a) lost the first Gulf War and b) agreed to abide > by the rules set by the victors. Victors who have that authority by > right of victory. And, of course, the victor in the first Gulf War was Kuwait, with the support of the UN. Explain to me why, for example, my grandfather couldn't go into Germany and complain they weren't paying off their war debt to France and the US set up at the end of the war as a condition of their surrender, and attempt to overthrow the German government for that reason? My grandfather fought in WWII, for the US, on behalf of France. (Well, actually, he was in the Pacific theater, but let's pretend.) That does not give him the authority to decide that the war in Europe isn't over because Germany is not (or, apparently, *might* not) be living up to their responsibilities to a third party, or to the US. It's even more absurd if the US had just started an investigation to see exactly if Germany was living up to it's promises, but he wasn't willing to wait for the result. Likewise, the US fought in the Gulf War, for the UN, on behalf of Kuwait. That does not give it the authority to decide that the Gulf War isn't over because Iraq isn't living up to their responsibility to Kuwait, or even to the UN. The violations, the war, the ceasefire, *everything*, was between Iraq and Kuwait, not the US. We were asked to help by someone else who was asked to help, and don't get to randomly leap in and decide to do whatever we want to Iraq based on this indirect request. Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of it. We can, being a soveign nation, do whatever the hell we want to, but we don't magically get UN authorization invade nations because at some point in the past we had UN authorization to invade them for a completely different reason on behalf of a nation that doesn't care anymore. -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-29 12:59:38-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <nieporen-AD7C7A.12152129042003@news.fu-berlin.de>, nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu says... > In article <MPG.191866ea8bc054149896bf@130.133.1.4>, > David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com> wrote: > >house@next.tuesday says... > >> Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >> >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > > >> >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the > >> >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An > >> >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed > >> >> with box knives. What does this imply?? > > >> >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! > > >> Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure > >> and simple. > > >While I hate to encourage you to keep reporting this claims of thins Mark > >Evans said without documentation, I have to remind everyone that the 'box > >cutters' are really just a myth promoted by the airlines. > >The hijackers probably had real knifes, and possibly some guns. The > >airlines, though, are studiously pretending it was a failure to create > >the correct rules, instead of just airline security being poor. > > The airlines are in no more position to know than anybody else -- and it > was the government, not the airlines, who originally said this. The box > cutters aren't a "myth" -- that implies that it's false -- but speculation. > *One* communication -- Barbara Olsen's -- from *one* plane mentioned box > cutters, and people just assumed. On another flight, a passenger reported > a rumor that someone had been "knived." > > But Mark's silliness about the gunshot is also fictional; that comes from > an early 9/11 FAA _draft_ memo that was never published. Nobody has ever > said that there was a gunshot. Not in any of the phone calls, not in any > communication. Oh, yeah, I doubt there were any gunshots. That, of course, doesn't mean there weren't any *guns*. ;) <rant> Airline passenger security is, and always will be, a joke. The correct thing is to simply have people who will not be taken hostage, and people who will not hesitate to attack people who are holding hostages. This world would work a lot better if, when someone took a hostage, we immediately tried to kill them regardless of the hostage's wellbeing. Yes, we'd end up with a few more dead hostages, at first. And then none ever again, as taking hostages just gets you killed, or arrested for murder in addition to whatever other crime you were committing. The same thing with kidnapping and blackmail, actually. </rant> -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-29 17:18:30-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


David Cheatham wrote: > That doesn't make any sense. > > Let's translate this to another situation: > > The UN is the only body empowered, under international law, to allow one > country to attack another. So what? Sovereign nations don't need "empowering" to attack other nations. Every single sovereign government on the planet is empowered to decide matters of war and peace based on its own national interests. None of them need UN approval or permission, except insofar as other nations are willing and able to stop or punish such actions. If the UN didn't exist, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq could have been repelled just as effectively by an ad hoc coalition as by the UN coalition in 1991. What repelled the Iraqi invasion was not the blustering of the UNSC--it was the military power of the coalition (the US, primarily); i.e., of the members of the UN, not the UN itself. The UN is not a government. The UN is a permanent diplomatic meeting. A _debating club_. A...neighbhorhood association--in a neighborhood where there is no government. No cops to call when the neighbors get rowdy. >They are a judge, jury, and legislate body, > but have no executive branch. It is nothing of the kind (and, God willing, never will be). > However, we own a gun. It's a very nice gun, one of the most powerful. So > Mr. UN often asks us to do things he himself cannot do. That's right. Mr. UN has no real power. He's the representative of the neighborhood association. And Mr. Hussein, down the street, has been extremely aggressive--invading his neighbor's house, stealing the TV and the silverware. The neighborhood association organized a campaign to go evict him from said house and force him to stay home. He was also supposed to surrender all his weapons and allow the neighbors to inspect his home to assure that he had. And after twelve years of refusing to do so, ignoring one blustering threat after another from Mr. UN, Uncle Sam got tired of it all. He spent months trying to convince the neighborhood association to help, but they refused. So he rounded up a few friends and kicked in Hussein's door, freed the people imprisoned in his basement, and put an end to the stalemate. All while the neighborhood association (or many members of it) carped incessantly. But who cares? They were unwilling or unable to do the job, but they also had no authority to tell anyone else not to. >>We didn't need "magical" UN authorization. We had _actual_ UN >>authorization obtained just last year. > > No, we didn't. That didn't authorize the use of force under any > circumstances. Yes, it did. I'm sure the Axis of Weasels didn't expect it to _happen_, not without an additional resolution (or five or ten), but it was sufficient.

2003-04-29 18:04:14-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:15:21 -0400, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > >But Mark's silliness about the gunshot is also fictional; that comes from >an early 9/11 FAA _draft_ memo that was never published. Nobody has ever >said that there was a gunshot. Not in any of the phone calls, not in any >communication. > >--------------------------------------------- It wasn't just a gunshot. It was an Israeli commando who was shot. How this is known, I have not a clue. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-29 18:07:33-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:12:33 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> Eventually every Internet debate with political content or mentioning >> war or Israel turns to Hitler and the Nazis. >> Stalin killed far more people for mostly political reasons, most of them >> citizens of the USSR, but since he was one of the allies in WW II he only > >Not only is a lot less fuss made of Stalin's victims than Hilter's victims >no-one goes around dividing these people in to "Jews" and "non-Jews". > The only one doing that is you. This topic is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your strawman attempt is pretty pathetic. Stimpson

2003-04-29 19:17:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <3EAEBE1E.5090305@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > David Cheatham wrote: > > > Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is > > violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, > > and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of > > it. > > No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to > comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all > the authorization we needed. Nothing in that resolution said that it > would have to be the _UN_ that inflicted those consequences. It _could_ > have been, but the UN chose to make itself irrelevant. That doesn't make any sense. Let's translate this to another situation: The UN is the only body empowered, under international law, to allow one country to attack another. They are a judge, jury, and legislate body, but have no executive branch. However, we own a gun. It's a very nice gun, one of the most powerful. So Mr. UN often asks us to do things he himself cannot do. Now, the judge said that Mr. Iraq had to do X, or unspecified bad things would happen. So, of course, that gives us the authorization to not only decided when Mr. Iraq is doing these bad things, but to sentence and punish him ourselves, simply because a decade ago the judge asked us to stop Mr. Iraq from doing a different thing. That's just completely absurd. And would, BTW, authorize attacks against the US, as the UN has condemned the US. (Of course, none of those get past the security council, but apparently actually *passing* said resolutions isn't important any more, it's okay for countries to just *claim* such resolutions have passed, or that a certain country would have held them up.) And please note that I know international law isn't real law, and we don't have to follow it. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not we *did* follow international law. > > We can, being a soveign nation, do whatever the hell we want to, but we > > don't magically get UN authorization invade nations because at some point > > in the past we had UN authorization to invade them for a completely > > different reason on behalf of a nation that doesn't care anymore. > > We didn't need "magical" UN authorization. We had _actual_ UN > authorization obtained just last year. No, we didn't. That didn't authorize the use of force under any circumstances. -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-29 20:17:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <n41uav48k4l6dd411ucdql61vvqiklkpgh@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >>But Mark's silliness about the gunshot is also fictional; that comes from >>an early 9/11 FAA _draft_ memo that was never published. Nobody has ever >>said that there was a gunshot. Not in any of the phone calls, not in any >>communication. >It wasn't just a gunshot. It was an Israeli commando who was shot. How >this is known, I have not a clue. Well, you know. He had a Jewish-sounding name. Jew, Israeli, they're conveniently the same when one does something wrong -- but conveniently different when anti-Semites want to criticize them. ("Oh, no. I didn't say that Jews were evil; I said that Zionists were.") --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-29 20:31:52-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


I am appalled at the U.S. killing of 15 Iraqis today (some of whom may or may not have been firing at the U.S. troops). I believe that an international team of crime investigators should investigate the incident, and in particular look for the bullets allegedly fired by Iraqis at U.S. troops).

2003-04-29 20:51:11+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... > On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > Google) wrote: > > > >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > >protesters? > >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > > > >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > >soldiers opened fire. > > > >Caroline > >No to the Profits of Doom > > I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be > exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? and we all > know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions later, > right? Seems to be their M.O. all along. All these friendly fire incidents, killing British and their own soldiers. Firing on a hotel that just happened to be a journalist base? It wouldn't be the first time during the invasion that they've fired on unarmed civilians. Why shouldn't I believe an eye witness account. Because it's not an American Soldier's eye witness account? They can't tell the difference between their allies and their enemies! Caroline

2003-04-29 21:56:12-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:15:21 -0400, David Marc Nieporent > <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > >But Mark's silliness about the gunshot is also fictional; that comes from > >an early 9/11 FAA _draft_ memo that was never published. Nobody has ever > >said that there was a gunshot. Not in any of the phone calls, not in any > >communication. > > > >--------------------------------------------- > > It wasn't just a gunshot. It was an Israeli commando who was shot. How > this is known, I have not a clue. The teeth or DNA of one of the bodies matched that of an Israeli commando?

2003-04-29 22:00:59-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


David Cheatham wrote: > In article <3EAEBE1E.5090305@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > > Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is > > > violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, > > > and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of > > > it. > > > > No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to > > comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all > > the authorization we needed. Nothing in that resolution said that it > > would have to be the _UN_ that inflicted those consequences. It _could_ > > have been, but the UN chose to make itself irrelevant. > > That doesn't make any sense. > > Let's translate this to another situation: > > The UN is the only body empowered, under international law, to allow one > country to attack another. They are a judge, jury, and legislate body, > but have no executive branch. > > However, we own a gun. It's a very nice gun, one of the most powerful. So > Mr. UN often asks us to do things he himself cannot do. > > Now, the judge said that Mr. Iraq had to do X, or unspecified bad things > would happen. > > So, of course, that gives us the authorization to not only decided when > Mr. Iraq is doing these bad things, but to sentence and punish him > ourselves, simply because a decade ago the judge asked us to stop Mr. > Iraq from doing a different thing. > > That's just completely absurd. And would, BTW, authorize attacks against > the US, as the UN has condemned the US. (Of course, none of those get > past the security council, but apparently actually *passing* said > resolutions isn't important any more, it's okay for countries to just > *claim* such resolutions have passed, or that a certain country would > have held them up.) The UN Security Council has passed many resolutions asking Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Does the Bush Doctrine give Arab nations permission to now enforce those resolutions?

2003-04-29 22:11:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message news:b8mlf7$7io$1@kermit.esat.net... > > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... > > On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > > Google) wrote: > > > > > > >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > > >protesters? > > >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > > > > > >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > > >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > > >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > > >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > > >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > > >soldiers opened fire. > > > > > >Caroline > > >No to the Profits of Doom > > > > I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be > > exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so > > Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam > Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? > > and we all > > know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions > later, > > right? > > Seems to be their M.O. all along. All these friendly fire incidents, > killing British and their own soldiers. Firing on a hotel that just > happened to be a journalist base? It wouldn't be the first time during the > invasion that they've fired on unarmed civilians. Why shouldn't I believe > an eye witness account. Because it's not an American Soldier's eye witness > account? They can't tell the difference between their allies and their > enemies! Replying to my own post. I've just seen a news report on ITN. Their reporter Andrea Catherwood is in Falluja. She showed buildings around the school peppered with bullet holes. The school had no obvious bullet holes and no American soldiers were injured in the incident. Caroline

2003-04-29 23:06:28-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:51:11 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... >> On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via >> Google) wrote: >> >> >> >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >> >protesters? >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html >> > >> >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >> >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >> >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >> >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >> >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >> >soldiers opened fire. >> > >> >Caroline >> >No to the Profits of Doom >> >> I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be >> exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so > >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. > >and we all >> know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions >later, >> right? > >Seems to be their M.O. all along. And I think that pretty much sums up where you're coming from on the issue. Hate america first. Well fine with me. We can hate you right back. >All these friendly fire incidents, >killing British and their own soldiers. Firing on a hotel that just >happened to be a journalist base? It wouldn't be the first time during the >invasion that they've fired on unarmed civilians. Why shouldn't I believe >an eye witness account. Because it's not an American Soldier's eye witness >account? They can't tell the difference between their allies and their >enemies! > >Caroline > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-29 23:10:19-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:11:17 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > Replying to my own post. > >I've just seen a news report on ITN. Their reporter Andrea Catherwood is in >Falluja. She showed buildings around the school peppered with bullet holes. >The school had no obvious bullet holes and no American soldiers were injured >in the incident. > >Caroline Of course you know that innocent muslims (religion of peace) would never do anything to provoke. They're much like the IRA in this regard. Enjoy. Apr 29, 9:17 PM (ET) By ELLEN KNICKMEYER (AP) An Iraqi man fans his wounded friend Tuesday April 29, 2003 at a hospital in Fallujah, Iraq after... Full Image FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. paratroopers fired on anti-American protesters during a nighttime demonstration, and a hospital reported Tuesday that 13 Iraqis were killed and 75 wounded, including three young boys. Soldiers said armed men had mixed into the crowd and fired at them from nearby buildings. The deaths outside a school in Fallujah, a conservative Sunni Muslim city and Baath Party stronghold 30 miles west of the capital, highlighted the tense and precarious balance as Americans try to keep the peace in Iraq. Americans and Iraqis gave sharply differing accounts of Monday night's shooting. U.S. forces insisted they opened fire only upon armed men - infiltrators among the protest crowd, according to Col. Arnold Bray, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, whose troops were involved in the shooting. "Which school kids carry AK-47s?" Bray asked. "I'm 100 percent certain the persons we shot at were armed." Protesters insisted their demonstration was unarmed and peaceful. Dr. Ahmed Ghandim al-Ali, director of Fallujah's general hospital, said the clash killed 13 Iraqis and injured about 75. The dead included three boys ages 8 to 10, he said. Some residents put the death toll higher, at 15. Survivors said the dead were buried quickly Tuesday morning, in accord with Islamic custom. No Americans were injured. The shooting was the third reported fatal clash involving U.S. troops and Iraqi protesters in two weeks, underscoring the problems soldiers face as they try to switch from fighting to peacekeeping. (AP) An Iraqi boy, Bahaa Mohammed, age 9, lies in a hospital in Fallujah, Iraq Tuesday April 29, 2003... Full Image On April 15 and 16, Marines opened fire during angry demonstrations in the northern city of Mosul. Iraqis said 17 people were killed there, though details remained unclear and the Marines insisted they fired in self-defense. The shootings, widely reported by Arab news media, have fueled resentment of the U.S. military weeks after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. U.S. forces serving in the area said they have been trained in crowd control. About half the company headquartered at the school in Fallujah served in Kosovo peacekeeping operations, 2nd Lt. Devin Woods said. It was unclear whether the protest that sparked the shootings grew from general animosity toward Americans in Fallujah, a city long considered a stronghold of Saddam support and site of factories suspected of involvement in banned weapons programs. But it appeared a clash of cultures, at least, was involved. (AP) A U.S. soldier tries to explain the American side of a shooting incident to an angry group of... Full Image Residents repeatedly denounced battalion members' use of binoculars and night-vision goggles. They accused soldiers of spying on women from the school's upper floors and rooftop. Monday's protest started after evening prayers on Saddam's birthday, in the past an occasion for weeklong celebrations. Lt. Col. Eric Nantz said the demonstration involved no more than 200 people - an indication, Nantz said, of support for American forces. The Iraqi dead and wounded in hospital wards and homes also included women and children shot inside their walled homes in the neighborhood. "They shot everyone who moved," said Rafid Mahmoud, standing by the bed of his wounded brother at Fallujah hospital Tuesday. His brother's foot had been amputated. "Americans are criminals," said 37-year-old Ebtesam Shamsudein, her leg bandaged. Her seven children surrounded her, one boy wearing clothes smeared with bloody palmprints. (AP) In this image from television, a bullet riddled car in a street in Fallujah, Iraq is seen Tuesday,... Full Image U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound troops were occupying. "The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals," the Central Command statement said. A Central Command spokesman, Lt. Mark Kitchens, said coalition forces "have consistently demonstrated their efforts to avoid civilian casualties and practice restraint. Any allegations to the contrary are simply not based on fact." Air Force Maj. Gen. Gene Renuart, U.S. Central Command's operations director, said the demonstration was apparently in celebration of Saddam's birthday. Some townspeople, however, said the crowd was objecting to the presence of troops, while others said students wanted the soldiers to leave the school so classes could resume. Some protesters carried AK-47 assault rifles, Nantz said. U.S. soldiers sent a loudspeaker-equipped truck to urge them to stop firing into the air, he said. As the chanting crowd milled about, soldiers said, U.S. forces used illumination rounds and a smoke grenade to try to keep gun-toting protesters away. At one point, Nantz said, soldiers sent out in an armored personnel carrier fired two rounds from a 50-caliber machine gun, also in warning. A company of the battalion's soldiers, 130 in all, had been based in the school since late last week. Eventually, soldiers of the company said, protesters closed to within no more than 10 feet of the schoolhouse wall. At that point, U.S. forces said, three men on a nearby roof fired into the school. "Everybody could see the muzzle flashes," said Sgt. Nkosi Campbell, who commanded the first Americans who fired. Even then, soldiers exercised restraint, Campbell said. "They turned around and said, "'Hey, sergeant, can we shoot? And that was when they were already under fire.'" Nantz said soldiers fired automatic weapons for 20 to 30 minutes. Because residents carried away the dead and wounded quickly, Bray said troops had no idea about Iraqi casualties overall. On Tuesday, pools of blood remained outside homes across from the school. Walls of homes were bullet-pitted. No bullet holes from incoming fire were obvious at the school, although soldiers said windows had been shot out. At the hospital, Arab television stations handed microphones to victims for interviews. Shamsudein's husband, the man whose foot was amputated, was wounded when he ran to close the gate to keep protesters out and his children in. Shamsuedein was shot trying to help him. One of her brothers-in-law came out to help. He was shot in the heart and died, relatives and doctors said. The men's mother, 65, stepped outside to see, and was shot in the shoulder. "They go out to save one another, you know," Mahmoud said. "They are brothers." Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-29 23:21:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-92E823.15524928042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > In article <b8jpqk$aq56r$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >That was not an "admission", LOL, just a statement of fact. > >Iraq/Kuwait conflict ended in a formal cease-fire. Why you don't > >define that as an end to the war is your problem, because it did in > >fact end the war. The only obligations attached to the agreement was > >the cease-fire itself. > > Incorrect. There's a reason why we use a clumsy term like "cease-fire" > instead of peace. A cease-fire is a *suspension* of hostilities, not a > termination of hostilities. The difference is that the former is > conditional, by definition. It's dependent on satisfactory performance. Yes, that performance being a continued cease-fire between Iraq and Kuwait. > >Wrong. The only obligation of Iraq under that particular agreement > >was to refrain from further attacks on Kuwait. > > Wrong. Sheesh, in your world it would be great to be a dictator. Start a > war, seize property, territory, kill people, and then when others defeat > you in the war, claim that you don't have any obligations except not to > attack again. If you think I am wrong please quote the text of any document showing the conditions under which the Iraq-Kuwait war ended in any conditions other than a cease-fire. > >The no-fly zones are not, and never have been, part of the UN-based > >cease-fire agreement. > > They exist, of course, to *enforce* the agreement. They exist because some countries felt it in their best advantage to put them in place. They are no part of the UN-based cease-fire agreement between Iraq and Kuwait. In fact they are not even UN-sanctioned as such.

2003-04-29 23:48:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <6bfravkj5patrk2jqa80cfo9pfqhng2j17@4ax.com>, >house@next.tuesday says... >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:20:19 -0700, Tim Bruening >> <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> > >> >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: >> > >> >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the >> >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An >> >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed >> >> with box knives. What does this imply?? >> > >> >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! >> > >> Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure >> and simple. > >While I hate to encourage you to keep reporting this claims of thins Mark >Evans said without documentation, I have to remind everyone that the 'box >cutters' are really just a myth promoted by the airlines. > >The hijackers probably had real knifes, and possibly some guns. The >airlines, though, are studiously pretending it was a failure to create >the correct rules, instead of just airline security being poor. > >-- >Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com >Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-30 00:01:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <6bfravkj5patrk2jqa80cfo9pfqhng2j17@4ax.com>, >house@next.tuesday says... >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:20:19 -0700, Tim Bruening >> <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >> > >> >"Stimpson J. Cat" wrote: >> > >> >> Nor did they report the Israeli commando who was shot on one of the >> >> hijacked planes. - I still have not figured this one out, btw. An >> >> Israeli commando was supposedly shot by the hijackers, who were armed >> >> with box knives. What does this imply?? >> > >> >The hijackers stole the commando's gun! >> > >> Oh!! I didn't get this. Honestly, I didn't even try. It's BS, pure >> and simple. > >While I hate to encourage you to keep reporting this claims of thins Mark >Evans said without documentation, I have to remind everyone that the 'box >cutters' are really just a myth promoted by the airlines. > >The hijackers probably had real knifes, and possibly some guns. The >airlines, though, are studiously pretending it was a failure to create >the correct rules, instead of just airline security being poor. I've never seem that seriously suggested anywhere, but if they had been armed that's probably what the airlines would have said, since there was no evidence left to prove it one way or the other. The sick thing is that tests made since security was "tightened" have found that the new improved federalised security does an even more piss-poor job of finding weapons in baggage.

2003-04-30 01:11:54-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <3EAF1656.6020004@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > David Cheatham wrote: > > > That doesn't make any sense. > > > > Let's translate this to another situation: > > > > The UN is the only body empowered, under international law, to allow one > > country to attack another. > > So what? Sovereign nations don't need "empowering" to attack other > nations. Every single sovereign government on the planet is empowered > to decide matters of war and peace based on its own national interests. > None of them need UN approval or permission, except insofar as other > nations are willing and able to stop or punish such actions. Congratulations Mr. Strawman. The line you snipped, a perfect rebut: 'And please note that I know international law isn't real law, and we don't have to follow it. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not we *did* follow international law.' That's what this entire discussion is about. No one is taking the surreal position that the US *couldn't* have done what it did. That is, in fact, a really absurd position to take, as the US clearly *could* invade Iraq. Do you honestly think I'm sitting here arguing that something that happened several months ago is physically impossible? In fact, *all* rule violations, from chewing gum in class to genocide, presumably are possible. There's no reason to outlaw something if it's impossible. > If the UN didn't exist, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq could have been > repelled just as effectively by an ad hoc coalition as by the UN > coalition in 1991. What repelled the Iraqi invasion was not the > blustering of the UNSC--it was the military power of the coalition (the > US, primarily); i.e., of the members of the UN, not the UN itself. Yes, no one disputes that. > The UN is not a government. The UN is a permanent diplomatic meeting. > A _debating club_. A...neighbhorhood association--in a neighborhood > where there is no government. No cops to call when the neighbors get rowdy. The UN is not a government. However, the UN is the only body under international law with the ability to authorize invasions of other countries. (And invading a country that is actively attacking you is also authorized.) All other invasions are not authorized under international law. They are clearly *possible*, otherwise we wouldn't have any wars at all, they're just *a violation of international law*. And, to repeat: 'And please note that I know international law isn't real law, and we don't have to follow it. That's completely irrelevant to whether or not we *did* follow international law.' > >They are a judge, jury, and legislate body, > > but have no executive branch. > > It is nothing of the kind (and, God willing, never will be). Explain how they do not act in those ways. I will agree they don't do a very good job of it, though. It's pretty much a perfect example of direct democracy in action, everyone votes their own self-interests. And of course it has the completely surreal veto. If we could find impartial people to be a jury, the best bet would be to split the UN in half, let the various countries *make* the rules, but not vote on all this country specific crap. But I seriously doubt we can find said people that would please everyone. Of course, then the rules would start applying evenly, and we'd have to explain why, for example, anthrax is *objectively* worse than several million kilotons of nuclear weapons. Sure, *we* know we aren't going to use them, but 'possible future actions' is a fairly lame legal standing. > > However, we own a gun. It's a very nice gun, one of the most powerful. So > > Mr. UN often asks us to do things he himself cannot do. > > That's right. Mr. UN has no real power. He's the representative of the > neighborhood association. And Mr. Hussein, down the street, has been > extremely aggressive--invading his neighbor's house, stealing the TV and > the silverware. The neighborhood association organized a campaign to go > evict him from said house and force him to stay home. He was also > supposed to surrender all his weapons and allow the neighbors to inspect > his home to assure that he had. > > And after twelve years of refusing to do so, ignoring one blustering > threat after another from Mr. UN, Uncle Sam got tired of it all. He > spent months trying to convince the neighborhood association to help, > but they refused. So he rounded up a few friends and kicked in > Hussein's door, freed the people imprisoned in his basement, and put an > end to the stalemate. And, of course, this is *ILLEGAL*. Sheesh. That's the entire point I'm making. You seem to think I'm attacking the US's soveignity, or the moral rightness of the war, or all sorts of random shit. I'm not. I'm just saying this war was in violation of international law. > All while the neighborhood association (or many members of it) carped > incessantly. But who cares? They were unwilling or unable to do the > job, but they also had no authority to tell anyone else not to. Except the association was specifically designated by the home owner's covenant (the UN charter), to be in charge of such things, and the covenant also forbid attacking other neighbors without the association's authorization. So, attacking Mr. Hussein was in violation of the covenant Uncle Sam signed. That is all I am saying, and your example makes it perfectly clear you completely agree with me. > >>We didn't need "magical" UN authorization. We had _actual_ UN > >>authorization obtained just last year. > > > > No, we didn't. That didn't authorize the use of force under any > > circumstances. > > Yes, it did. I'm sure the Axis of Weasels didn't expect it to _happen_, > not without an additional resolution (or five or ten), but it was > sufficient. What do you mean, 'sufficient'? How so? I love how, on one hand, you claim we can do anything we want, which is certainly true, but on the other hand we had 'sufficient' authority to go in there. If we can do anything we want (which, in fact, we can), we don't *need* 'sufficient authority' to do anything, and thus the fact we did something doesn't really prove anything, does it? -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-04-30 01:40:32-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:51:11 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> > wrote: > >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... > >> On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > >> Google) wrote: > >> >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > >> >protesters? > >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > >> > > >> >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > >> >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > >> >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > >> >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > >> >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > >> >soldiers opened fire. > >> > > >> >Caroline > >> >No to the Profits of Doom > >> > >> I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be > >> exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so > > > >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam > >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? > > You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? And "rabble rousing" is now an excecutable offence. > >and we all > >> know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions > later,right? > > > >Seems to be their M.O. all along. > > And I think that pretty much sums up where you're coming from on the issue. > Hate america first. Well fine with me. We can hate you right back. You're pretty big with the hate aren't you? Hate the Iraqi Muslims (your quote "Of course you know that innocent muslims (religion of peace) would never do anything to provoke...") who have not attacked America. And then the IRA jibe... You've made that remark to the wrong Irish person. The IRA are scum. Stupid, misguided americans with romantic notions have been funding them for years. I don't hate America. I hate the American regime for this war. Big difference. > >All these friendly fire incidents, > >killing British and their own soldiers. Firing on a hotel that just > >happened to be a journalist base? It wouldn't be the first time during the > >invasion that they've fired on unarmed civilians. Why shouldn't I believe > >an eye witness account. Because it's not an American Soldier's eye witness > >account? They can't tell the difference between their allies and their > >enemies! Caroline

2003-04-30 01:40:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3EAF43A8.A0D9C160@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >I am appalled at the U.S. killing of 15 Iraqis today (some of whom may >or may not have been firing at the U.S. troops). If you don't even know, then how can you be appalled? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-30 02:11:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b8f5n2$9ap8u$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> You don't RC. >??? You said, "IIRC, ten times as many Palestinians are being killed as are Israelis." I responded that you don't RC. Even if we ignore the difference between civilian and combatant deaths, the ratio of total deaths isn't anywhere near 10-1. >> False. The current intifada was planned by the PLO to put pressure on >> Israel. Sharon had nothing to do with it, as the PLO has said several >> times. >> (Of course, the entire premise, if true, would just show the situation >> Israel faces: Sharon walks around, and in response Palestinians start >> killing people.) >A bit idiotic to say that that was the cause. WWI was not *caused* by the >Sarajevo assassination. It was *caused* by the arms race between Germany >and Britain, France's resentment at having lost the 1870 war, and the system >of alliances that developed in the meanwhile. The assassination was the >spark that led to war. The current intifada was not *caused* by Sharon >walking around in Muslim areas. It was caused by Israel's invasion and >occupation of land ceded by treaty to the Palestinians. No such treaty exists. Not only wasn't it a treaty, but nothing except partial civil authority was ceded. Israel explicitly retained control of the land. > Sharon's >shit-stirring was the spark that led to the current conflict. Isn't it amazing how the mere existence of Jews is considered "shit-stirring" by some? The solution to Palestinian terror is always, "Get rid of the Jews." Palestinians murder shoppers at a mall, and some people say, "Well, it's Israel's fault because some Jews want to live in the West Bank." Palestinians go on a riot, attacking Jewish civilians with rocks and guns, and some people say, "It's Sharon's fault for walking around Israel." >> There is no Palestinian state. >Israel signed a treaty that gave land to be used to establish a Palestinian >state. No, they didn't. > The Palestinian signatory is held to represent the Palestinian >state. No, it isn't. You simply can't paraphrase a legal document based on vague ideas about what you think it was going to lead to. The Oslo accords were a declaration of principles, *not* a treaty. They were to create an _interim_ organization to provide a _framework_ for further negotiations; they didn't create a country. Read them: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00q00 >> Well, there you go. Stop watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Company. >> Read a slightly less biased source. >What do you suggest? Fox news? Do you realise that the BBC has a >reputation for balanced and accurate news coverage that is second to none? Do you realize that this is total nonsense, and that the BBC only has a reputation for balance and accuracy among those who agree with its left-wing agenda? Did you catch where they called Osama Bin Laden a "dissident" rather than a terrorist yesterday? >> No, don't. For one thing, you're making up the numbers. For another, >> "kill ratios" are irrelevant; more Germans died than Americans in >> WW2, but that certainly doesn't mean that Germany is the side with >> the grievance. >But Germany invaded and occupied a country in defiance of international law. >The Palestinians aren't doing so. The Israelis are. Deal with it. False. Israel invaded no country. Violated no "international law," as if there were any such thing. Palestinians _are_ continually deliberately murdering civilians, though. >> For a third, if one was going to look at deaths, one should look at >> innocent deaths, not combatant deaths. And most Palestinian deaths >> are combatant deaths; most Israel deaths are civilian deaths. >The body count in this intifada as I last heard it was around 100-150 >Israeli dead, and around 1000 Palestinian dead. Break it down as you will. The body count as you last heard it bears no resemblance to the actual body count. >> Netanyahu wasn't the prime minister before Sharon. Barak was. >Rabin signed the treaty. Netanyahu was the next to be elected. Netanyahu >was the first PM to break the treaty by building settlements on Palestinian >land. No such treaty exists. Not only are you incorrectly promoting the Oslo accords to the status of treaty, but you're inventing new terms of the treaty. Find the paragraph that says anything about not building so-called settlements. >> No. Peace treaties do not "establish" peace. They're just pieces of >> paper. Why don't Europeans understand the difference between paper >> and reality? >Voila. The American attitude to international law. Better living through >superior firepower. The American attitude to international law is that it's fictional. You can't have law without a sovereign. There is no international sovereign; each country is sovereign. But that's not the point I was making. Peace is a state of being, not a piece of paper. A treaty can only recognize peace that already exists; it isn't peace itself. Saying that there was peace because the paper was signed is confusing the form with the substance. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-30 14:26:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 30 Apr 2003 01:40:32 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via Google) wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... >> >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam >> >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? >> >> You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. > >So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children >can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? > And "rabble rousing" is now an excecutable offence. How do you know that's all they wanted? Because that's what they told the newsmen covering it? You are naive if you don't think people often have ulterior motives for things they do. I have no doubt many have legitimate gripes but you're very quick to believe what you want to believe. >> >and we all >> >> know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions >> later,right? >> > >> >Seems to be their M.O. all along. >> >> And I think that pretty much sums up where you're coming from on the issue. >> Hate america first. Well fine with me. We can hate you right back. > >You're pretty big with the hate aren't you? Actually, that would seem to be you who's so big on the hate. > Hate the Iraqi Muslims >(your quote "Of course you know that innocent muslims (religion of >peace) would never do anything to provoke...") who have not attacked >America. And then the IRA jibe... You've made that remark to the >wrong Irish person. The IRA are scum. Stupid, misguided americans >with romantic notions have been funding them for years. Read that back and maybe you'll notice the irony. Well, maybe not so i'll try to explain it. I was comparing YOU who wants to believe all the niceties about the innocent Muslims just wanting their school back with those who have the romantic notions of the IRA. You're painting a picture of all the Iraqis that's quite the same as those who think the IRA are all just wonderful and innocent people who are unduly attacked by the evil British war machine. >I don't hate America. I hate the American regime for this war. Big >difference. Again with the irony. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-30 14:58:43+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-ED2164.02110130042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <b8f5n2$9ap8u$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de>, > "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >>> Well, there you go. Stop watching the Baghdad Broadcasting Company. >>> Read a slightly less biased source. > >>What do you suggest? Fox news? Do you realise that the BBC has a >>reputation for balanced and accurate news coverage that is second to >>none? > > Do you realize that this is total nonsense, and that the BBC only has > a reputation for balance and accuracy among those who agree with its > left-wing agenda? I think you'll find that the majority of those who think the BBC has a left wing agenda tend to be right wing religious conservative nutcases...

2003-04-30 21:03:44-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:26:31 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wroth: > > >David Glenn Misner wrote: > >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> > >> >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >> >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >> >> Only a few Iraqi people. > >I've seen CNN reports showing a whole crowd of Iraqis telling us to get >out. It looked like a crowd of at least several hundred. In my book, >several hundred is more than a few. Compared to 24 million??? I do not think so. are these the same people that was shouting "thank you Mr. Bush"??? only a few days earlier?????

2003-04-30 21:03:45-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:46:31 -0400, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wroth: >In article <31rj8b.spb.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>In alt.tv.angel Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >>> Mark Evans wrote: > >>>> Not that attempting to "crush terrorists" is actually likely to work, >>>> unless surrounding political issues are also addressed. > >>> My proposal includes removing the Israeli troops, which would count as >>> "addressing surrounding political issues". > >>There are also matters of access to natural resources. When Israel overran >>the borders the UN had drawn up it also took control of most of the sources >>of drinking water in the former Mandate. > >>The "settlers" would also have to go. > >So Mark's in favor of ethnic cleansing of Jews. What a surprise. They could use Dove One quarter cleansing cream :)

2003-04-30 22:58:53-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


ELurio wrote: > << I am appalled at the U.S. killing of 15 Iraqis today (some of whom may > or may not have been firing at the U.S. troops). I believe that an > international team of crime investigators should investigate the > incident, and in particular look for the bullets allegedly fired by > Iraqis at U.S. troops). >><BR><BR> > > ...and this team should include only Americans. > > Self-Defense is NOT immoral. We need an international team, so that no one can accuse the U.S. of PLANTING AK-47 bullets at the school (where our troops were) to convince people that it was self-defense.

2003-04-30 23:42:50-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


North Korea is developing nuclear weapons (fearing that the U.S. might attack it) and wants the U.S. to talk to it directly about a settlement to the nuclear crisis, but Bush refuses, not wanting to seem to succumb to nuclear blackmail. In other words, Bush doesn't want to lose face, and is willing to risk a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula to avoid losing face. Isn't preventing nuclear war more important than saving face? I urge that Bush make the following offer: Negotiate a nonaggression pact and much needed humanitarian and economic aid, in return for North Korea freezing its nuclear program at the start of the talks, permitting inspections to verify its nuclear weapons freeze, and agreeing to eliminate its nukes as part of a final settlement. Bush should broadcast that offer directly to the North Korea people, to make it harder for the government to reject it out of hand.

2003-05-01 00:22:45+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:56:12 -0700, Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >The teeth or DNA of one of the bodies matched that of an Israeli commando? > streeeeeeeeetching................ Stimpson

2003-05-01 01:54:41-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Caffeine Cal via Google wrote: > Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > protesters? > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > > FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > soldiers opened fire. However, the U.S. troops say that people in the crowd did fire on them. (perhaps terrorists infiltrated the demonstrators). To find out who is telling the truth, I believe that a neutral group of crime investigators should go in to that school to look for the bullets allegedly fired by people in that crowd.

2003-05-01 01:58:47-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


EGK wrote: > On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > Google) wrote: > > >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > >protesters? > >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > > > >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > >soldiers opened fire. > > > >Caroline > >No to the Profits of Doom > > I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be > exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so and we all > know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions later, > right? Its my understanding that injured demonstrators interviewed at hospitals said that there weren't any armed people in that crowd, and that the U.S. troops fired without provocation.

2003-05-01 08:18:24+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > Google) wrote: >>Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >>protesters? >>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html >> >>FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >>Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >>miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >>Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >>local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >>soldiers opened fire. >> >>Caroline >>No to the Profits of Doom > I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be > exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so and we all As opposed to people who believe exactly what some US soldier or politican says. Even one proven less than honest in the past. > know the damned cowboys in America just shoot first and ask questions later, > right? It isn't just the odd Arab who claims that US soldiers are trigger happy though. Anyway how are Iraqis going to use a school for teaching students with foreign soliders in the way?

2003-05-01 08:28:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... >> On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via >> Google) wrote: >> >> >> >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >> >protesters? >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html >> > >> >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >> >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >> >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >> >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >> >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >> >soldiers opened fire. >> > >> >Caroline >> >No to the Profits of Doom >> >> I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be >> exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so > Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam > Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? However much Iraqis might welcome getting rid of Saddam Hussein they are unlikely to be happy with uninvited foreigners getting in their way. Who would be?

2003-05-01 08:31:29+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Caffeine Cal via Google <caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:51:11 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> >> wrote: >> >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> >news:403tavs8hh4dhcq4euu6u9ea6lj7ap4eus@4ax.com... >> >> On 29 Apr 2003 03:08:04 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via >> >> Google) wrote: >> >> >Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >> >> >protesters? >> >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html >> >> > >> >> >FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >> >> >Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >> >> >miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >> >> >Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >> >> >local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >> >> >soldiers opened fire. >> >> > >> >> >Caroline >> >> >No to the Profits of Doom >> >> >> >> I find it hilarious that you're all too willing to believe that must be >> >> exactly how it happened. I mean the Sunni Muslim cleric said so >> > >> >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam >> >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? >> >> You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. > So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children > can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? More to the point what are the US soldiers doing in the school in the first place?

2003-05-01 08:35:53+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: >> Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is >> violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, >> and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of >> it. > No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to > comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all It's thus up to the UN to decide the nature and timing of those consequences. *If* the UN decides there is a failure to comply. We didn't even get to the point where the UN had finished gathering information to work out if Iraq was or was not complying with the resolution.

2003-05-01 08:46:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: >> In article <3EAEBE1E.5090305@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... >> > David Cheatham wrote: >> > >> > > Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is >> > > violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, >> > > and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of >> > > it. >> > >> > No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to >> > comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all >> > the authorization we needed. Nothing in that resolution said that it >> > would have to be the _UN_ that inflicted those consequences. It _could_ >> > have been, but the UN chose to make itself irrelevant. >> >> That doesn't make any sense. >> >> Let's translate this to another situation: >> >> The UN is the only body empowered, under international law, to allow one >> country to attack another. They are a judge, jury, and legislate body, >> but have no executive branch. >> >> However, we own a gun. It's a very nice gun, one of the most powerful. So >> Mr. UN often asks us to do things he himself cannot do. >> >> Now, the judge said that Mr. Iraq had to do X, or unspecified bad things >> would happen. >> >> So, of course, that gives us the authorization to not only decided when >> Mr. Iraq is doing these bad things, but to sentence and punish him >> ourselves, simply because a decade ago the judge asked us to stop Mr. >> Iraq from doing a different thing. >> >> That's just completely absurd. And would, BTW, authorize attacks against >> the US, as the UN has condemned the US. (Of course, none of those get >> past the security council, but apparently actually *passing* said >> resolutions isn't important any more, it's okay for countries to just >> *claim* such resolutions have passed, or that a certain country would >> have held them up.) > The UN Security Council has passed many resolutions asking Israel to withdraw > from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Does the Bush Doctrine give Arab nations > permission to now enforce those resolutions? Why should it just apply to Arabs? If the doctrine applys any nation could attack any other nation which is in violation of UN resolutions.

2003-05-01 10:07:46-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Mark Evans wrote: > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > >>David Cheatham wrote: > > >>>Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is >>>violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, >>>and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of >>>it. >> > >>No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to >>comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all > > > It's thus up to the UN to decide the nature and timing of those > consequences. *If* the UN decides there is a failure to comply. > > We didn't even get to the point where the UN had finished > gathering information to work out if Iraq was or was not > complying with the resolution. They were _never_ going to decide it was time to act. The French, Germans, Russians were too busy making under-the-table deals with Saddam Hussein to ever go along with a definitive action. We (the US) gave the UN enough rope to hang themselves by proving they were unable/unwilling to take decisive action, and then the US stepped in. I have no problem with that. I approve of that, in fact.

2003-05-01 13:27:06-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


David Cheatham wrote: > In article <3EB15462.6000103@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... >>I have no problem with that. I approve of that, in fact. > > And, again, what does that have to do with anything? > > We were (and, in fact, still are) in violation of the UN charter and > international law. That's all *anyone* has been claiming. We are _not_ in violation of the UN Charter or international law. At most we have (had) an obligation to report to the UN that we'd attacked Iraq, and why. I think they're aware of it.

2003-05-01 13:34:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <3EB15462.6000103@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > Mark Evans wrote: > > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > > > >>David Cheatham wrote: > > > > > >>>Any claims that we can decide, unilaterally, that any country is > >>>violating treaties with the UN and attack them *against* the UN's wishes, > >>>and *not* be violating the UN charter, is fairly absurd on the face of > >>>it. > >> > > > >>No, the UN resolution threatening "serious consequences" for failure to > >>comply with previous UN resolutions that was issued last year was all > > > > > > It's thus up to the UN to decide the nature and timing of those > > consequences. *If* the UN decides there is a failure to comply. > > > > We didn't even get to the point where the UN had finished > > gathering information to work out if Iraq was or was not > > complying with the resolution. > > They were _never_ going to decide it was time to act. The French, > Germans, Russians were too busy making under-the-table deals with Saddam > Hussein to ever go along with a definitive action. We (the US) gave the > UN enough rope to hang themselves by proving they were unable/unwilling > to take decisive action, and then the US stepped in. > > I have no problem with that. I approve of that, in fact. And, again, what does that have to do with anything? We were (and, in fact, still are) in violation of the UN charter and international law. That's all *anyone* has been claiming. Well, in this branch of the thread, anyway. Mark Evans likes to go off on random rants about fourth-hand misreported incidences *during* a war, which is entirely irrelevant...yes, during a war, and in an occupied country, sometimes civilians end up dead. And sometimes people lie, or just misrepresent what's going on. (For example, with the Israel/Palestine situation, there's a rather large difference between one or two people throwing small rocks in the general direction of soldiers, and fifteen people targeting soldiers with rocks that could kill them if they hit them correctly. One is a slightly violent protest, one is an attack. Which is why I wait to judge all reports of 'Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers' until I see a video.) But anyway, accidently, or even *deliberately*, killing civilians isn't a violation of international law. Deliberately *targeting* them instead of military targets is, but it's not illegal to blow up an entire building full of nuns because there's a sniper in there too, as long as there wasn't a better and equally safe way of getting rid of just the sniper. (Not that I wouldn't get outraged such an act, but that's not the point.) -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-05-01 20:35:00-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


I've been wondering why the U.S. didn't supply hospitals and water purification plants in blacked out Baghdad with emergency power generators, so as to keep them operating to treat injured Iraqis and supply Iraqis with disease free water.

2003-05-01 21:23:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


In article <3EB1831A.4010608@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > David Cheatham wrote: > > In article <3EB15462.6000103@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > > >>I have no problem with that. I approve of that, in fact. > > > > And, again, what does that have to do with anything? > > > > We were (and, in fact, still are) in violation of the UN charter and > > international law. That's all *anyone* has been claiming. > > We are _not_ in violation of the UN Charter or international law. At > most we have (had) an obligation to report to the UN that we'd attacked > Iraq, and why. I think they're aware of it. Well, that's an interesting way to argue. You're bouncing back and forth between two positions, one claiming that we don't need such authorization, and one claiming we had it. My rebuttal to the first is 'no one said we needed it', and my rebuttal to the second is 'No, we didn't, and here's why.'. But you just bring up the second point when someone rebuts the first point, and vis versa. Let's start over, shall we, with paragraphs you've not responded to. Do not respond with 'We do not need authorization', as I have never under any circumstances made such a claim: Explain to me why, for example, my grandfather couldn't go into Germany and complain they weren't paying off their war debt to France and the US set up at the end of the war as a condition of their surrender, and attempt to overthrow the German government for that reason? My grandfather fought in WWII, for the US, on behalf of France. (Well, actually, he was in the Pacific theater, but let's pretend.) That does not give him the authority to decide that the war in Europe isn't over because Germany is not (or, apparently, *might* not) be living up to their responsibilities to a third party, or to the US. It's even more absurd if the US had just started an investigation to see exactly if Germany was living up to it's promises, but he wasn't willing to wait for the result. Likewise, the US fought in the Gulf War, for the UN, on behalf of Kuwait. That does not give it the authority to decide that the Gulf War isn't over because Iraq isn't living up to their responsibility to Kuwait, or even to the UN. The violations, the war, the ceasefire, *everything*, was between Iraq and Kuwait, not the US. We were asked to help by someone else who was asked to help, and don't get to randomly leap in and decide to do whatever we want to Iraq based on this indirect request. Thus we were *not* enforcing resolution 660 with the invasion. That merely gave us authorization to go into Iraq on behalf of Kuwait, and Kuwait and Iraq settled their differences over a decade ago. -- Yes, I'm now munging my email address, the domain is just creeknet.com Strip off the 'tg' or your email be _silently_ discarded.

2003-05-01 21:34:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


IMHO, U.S. troops should be replaced by troops from democratic Muslim nations (Turkey, Malaysia, Bangladesh) and from the EU.

2003-05-02 00:20:23-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Weapons of Mass Distraction: Waging war to distract people from our economic and environmental problems, and from Bush attempts to weaken environmental protections and drill at the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

2003-05-02 00:25:53-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Saddam's palaces had lots of porn too. I think they called it Weapons of Masturbation. =)

2003-05-02 01:28:50-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0050bvo9kk72518q107h9tq1lbk9o8rjg0@4ax.com>... > On 30 Apr 2003 01:40:32 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > Google) wrote: > > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... > > >> >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam > >> >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? > >> > >> You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. > > > >So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children > >can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? > > And "rabble rousing" is now an excecutable offence. > > How do you know that's all they wanted? Because that's what they told the > newsmen covering it? You are naive When it comes to this occupation, I don't think I'm the one suffering from naivete. Caroline

2003-05-02 11:42:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 2 May 2003 01:28:50 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via Google) wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0050bvo9kk72518q107h9tq1lbk9o8rjg0@4ax.com>... >> On 30 Apr 2003 01:40:32 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via >> Google) wrote: >> >> >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... >> >> >> >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam >> >> >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? >> >> >> >> You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. >> > >> >So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children >> >can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? >> > And "rabble rousing" is now an excecutable offence. >> >> How do you know that's all they wanted? Because that's what they told the >> newsmen covering it? You are naive > >When it comes to this occupation, I don't think I'm the one suffering from naivete. > >Caroline Look, You're only point seems to be that the US is the root of all evil and you'll believe anything that's evidence of it. Great, fine, terrific. Have a ball believing that. I've said many times I wish my own govt. would just tell the rest of the world to fuck off and when they come begging for handouts as they always do or want us to fix things after they've made another big mess, tell them to handle it themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-05-02 14:09:10+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in news:3EB0E0D1.FC28C9A3@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us: > > > Caffeine Cal via Google wrote: > >> Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed >> protesters? >> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html >> >> FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 >> Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 >> miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni >> Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a >> local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the >> soldiers opened fire. > > However, the U.S. troops say that people in the crowd did fire on > them. (perhaps terrorists infiltrated the demonstrators). To find out > who is telling the truth, I believe that a neutral group of crime > investigators should go in to that school to look for the bullets > allegedly fired by people in that crowd. Like, say, UN peacekeepers? Better ask Bush Jr's permission first.

2003-05-02 17:45:10-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


As a way to help solve the health care crisis, I would offer hospital and doctors and staff on a VOLUNTARY basis the opportunity to give free medical care (operations, medicine etc., one day or so a week, ..everyone rotates so all days are covered) in exchange for decent tax breaks on their incomes. Since a majority of doctors and such are well off, this could mean tremendous opportunity to keep money that belongs to them. Many higher income people without tax shelters pay 75% in taxes right now. The incentive is right and the feds don't have to get involved spending to build and maintain facilities. The process is voluntary, so the medical staff participating do it willingly and they have a sense of contribution to society, not enslavement to elitists and their swell-sounding ideas. Also, because the amount of non-paying customers go down, the operating losses go down and the cost of health care goes down for everyone. I would also offer such tax breaks to lawyers who volunteer to represent poor people in court, people who volunteer to help restore the environment and care for sick wild animals, and people who volunteer to help the poor, either here or abroad. (Tax Breaks For The Peace Corps!).

2003-05-02 17:49:11-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Before the war, Bush gave me the distinct impression that Iraq had lots of deployed WMDs and would either use them itself in the near future (to either defend itself from invading U.S. troops, or against its neighbors) or give them to terrorists. He seemed almost panic stricken. If Iraq didn't have WMDs deployed, Bush should get an Oscar for his great acting job!:) The Iraqi Information Minister deserves an Oscar too!:)

2003-05-02 18:31:16-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


I would like to see an All-American Peace Initiative, in which the U.S. would devote a large portion of its defense budget to achieve sustainable national energy self sufficiency. The military money would be used to: Develop and manage our sustainable energy resources. Our productive farmland and forestland can produce energy and chemicals that we have been importing from oil rich parts of the world. Hydrogen fuels can be used in present day internal combustion engines (with a few adjustments), and can be extracted from water with solar and wind generated electricity. Solar electric systems can be installed in urban and rural communities and in vast areas of our nation to produce electricity. Wind power and hydropower can also be used to generate electricity. Produce energy in local communities (using the above mentioned solar and wind energy, and also biofuels and landfill gases), instead of transmitting it from large, vulnerable power plants. Build an energy efficient transportation system consisting of fuel-efficient vehicles, buses and light rail in communities and fast trains connecting all major areas. Set up international programs to enable all peoples to be energy self sufficient. This will enable all peoples to also have enough food, shelter, and security, eliminating a major seed of war and thus enhancing our national security, making this initiative a 100% legitimate defense expenditure. In this way, we can create lots of jobs, eliminate any need to wage war in the Middle East, reduce the pressures for war worldwide, and make lots of money exporting renewable energy technologies to the world.

2003-05-02 19:30:33-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Below are some questions I would like answered about the war: When the U.S. occupied a blacked out Baghdad, why for God's sake didn't it supply emergency power generators to hospitals and water purification plants? Why didn't the Pentagon order U.S. troops to immediately secure government buildings (to protect documents about WMDs and Iraqi atrocities), museums, and hospitals? Why didn't the Pentagon issue such orders when the looting started? Why didn't our military doctors set up lots of medical tents (as they can do very quickly) all over Baghdad to substitute for the looted hospitals? Why are private charity relief flights being barred from landing in Iraq? When neighbors of a munitions dump (the one that exploded recently and killed a number of Iraqis) in Baghdad expressed their fears about that dump, why didn't U.S. troops either remove the munitions or evacuate the neighbors? Why did U.S. troops occupy a school in Fallujah? Why aren't Iraqi POWs being recruited to help restore order in Iraq, create a new Iraqi army, and search for WMDs. Why isn't the U.S. allowing UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq to help it search the huge numbers of potential WMD sites that need searching? Our over stretched troops could sure use the help! In light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found yet, how did U.S. intelligence come to the conclusion that Iraq had lots of WMDs?

2003-05-02 19:33:16+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 2 May 2003 01:28:50 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via > Google) wrote: >>EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0050bvo9kk72518q107h9tq1lbk9o8rjg0@4ax.com>... >>> On 30 Apr 2003 01:40:32 -0700, caffeinecal@yahoo.co.uk (Caffeine Cal via >>> Google) wrote: >>> >>> >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<1bfuav88b9j0hfp9g1gtbr8q1l59q2j27m@4ax.com>... >>> >>> >> >Why would the Sunni Muslim cleric lie? Sunnis were oppressed under Saddam >>> >> >Hussein, so surely they'd welcome the invasion, wouldn't they? >>> >> >>> >> You don't think they have something to gain by rabble rousing? How naive. >>> > >>> >So wanting invading forces to leave a primary school so their children >>> >can get back to normal life and have an education is "rabble rousing"? >>> > And "rabble rousing" is now an excecutable offence. >>> >>> How do you know that's all they wanted? Because that's what they told the >>> newsmen covering it? You are naive >> >>When it comes to this occupation, I don't think I'm the one suffering from naivete. >> >>Caroline > Look, You're only point seems to be that the US is the root of all evil and > you'll believe anything that's evidence of it. Great, fine, terrific. Which other country has invaded one thousands of miles away from its own borders recently? > Have a ball believing that. > I've said many times I wish my own govt. would just tell the rest of the > world to fuck off and when they come begging for handouts as they always do But somehow the US government keeps on handing out cash, to questionable governments, at the same time that the US is cutting back on the services it provides to US citizens in the US. > or want us to fix things after they've made another big mess, tell them to The problem with this argument is that the US has *made* plenty of big messes either on their own or with a bit of help from others. This, BTW, includes the whole of the Middle East. > handle it themselves. Plenty of parts of the world would be happy to see the back of the US.

2003-05-02 20:01:54-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Before the war, Bush felt it was urgent to stop Weapons of Mass Destruction (TM) from falling into the hands of terrorists, so it was necessary to invade Iraq NOW! Now that Iraq has collapsed, any hidden weapons are now unguarded, and it would be easy to smuggle WMDs out of Iraq in all the confusion. Why isn't Bush worried about WMDs being unguarded by the now extinct regime and thus being easy for terrorists to smuggle out? (Bush is out celebrating victory as if there is no more danger from Iraq). Wouldn't the UN inspectors Bush is barring be useful for stopping WMDs from being smuggled out?

2003-05-02 21:18:18-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


One of our main reasons for invading Iraq was that it wasn't cooperating fully with UN inspectors. Why isn't the U.S. cooperating fully with UN inspectors? It is not letting UN inspectors back into Iraq, in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

2003-05-02 23:26:33-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Paul Smith wrote: > Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in > news:3EB0E0D1.FC28C9A3@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us: > > > > > > > Caffeine Cal via Google wrote: > > > >> Do these rules include the right of the invaders to murder unarmed > >> protesters? > >> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030429/80/dys3p.html > >> > >> FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops have shot dead at least 13 > >> Iraqis demonstrating near a school overnight in Falluja, 50 km (30 > >> miles) west of Baghdad, residents have told Reuters. A local Sunni > >> Muslim cleric told Reuters the unarmed demonstrators had gone to a > >> local school occupied by U.S. troops to ask them to leave, but the > >> soldiers opened fire. > > > > However, the U.S. troops say that people in the crowd did fire on > > them. (perhaps terrorists infiltrated the demonstrators). To find out > > who is telling the truth, I believe that a neutral group of crime > > investigators should go in to that school to look for the bullets > > allegedly fired by people in that crowd. > > Like, say, UN peacekeepers? Better ask Bush Jr's permission first. I wasn't thinking of a full fledged peacekeeping force to investigate this incident.

2003-05-02 23:41:43-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030419204949.18912.00000218@mb-m12.aol.com... > > Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > > > > > And newsflash- if > > >our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world > would > > >be much different than it is. > > > > A post-nuclear wasteland? > > > > > > > No, I'm very confident that we could control the world through economic and > conventional warfare... sure, we might have to light off a couple of nukes, > but only in the real extreme corners of the world... the more pussified > countries would fall right into line, I mean just look at Europe. What's your plan for taking over the world?:) How would you take over the other nuclear powers (Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea)?

2003-05-02 23:47:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Mike Craney wrote: > EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in > news:73u3av8r6ls3cr07anthtftv0f3351il90@4ax.com: > > > > Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim > > on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another > > masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own > > needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that > > he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If > > he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that > > he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to > > Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of > > hypocrites. Too funny. > > Well, I don't really know about this Guig characater, but to me, the height > of hypocrisy in criticism of the US is when one simultaneously critcizes > (1) our former support of totalitarian regimes when it suited us, and (2) > the fac