Happy Birthday America

Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ClawJammer wrote:

There is plenty of criticism on the so called "war on terror". But I
have yet to hear any constructive ideas here on how to resolve the
problem.


Gathering intelligence *before* attacking nations either verbally or with
military might, would be a grand step forward in the eyes of most countries
in the world. America is currently like a herd of rhinos stampeding through
a village, then looking around in wonder when realizing the villagers
aren't cheering them on. Nothing will undo the WTC terrorist act. Knee jerk
reactions like dropping bombs into the middle of one of the most volatile
and religious fanatic regions of the planet, then looking for (and failing
for moths to produce) evidence to justify it after the fact, just isn't the
way to gain international support nor prevent future terrorist acts. It's
like attacking a beehive without any real idea of how to kill the critters
when they come swarming out to retaliate. All free countries were horrified
at the WTC disaster. There was little global doubt when it came to rooting
out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq though....? It clearly could have been
handled better.

We saw what 12 years of "handling it better" accomplished: A brutal dictator
playing perpetual WMD hide and seek with an impotent U.N..

I was on vacation in the US for a bit over a month early this year (I'm
usually there a month or so every year) and after watching the news and
presidential speeches broadcast I can see how the average american got
suckered. It's the exact same thing Hitler did. Feed the people's fear,
then tell them who to fear, then tell them the only way to sort it out is
to start a war. Too many americans are completely blinded by it. The US
domestic propaganda machine was very very good. Now the world is hoping the
nation will rein itself in before it has plunged the world into WW3, with
it as the agressor.

Did Neville Chamberlain write that for you?

rstlne wrote:
Point taken...though I doubt anyone will miss Cutesy and Poopsey
Hussein.


Hah
yea..
I think that it will be "Great" for the future of Iraq..
But I just dont approve of how the US went about it..



Uh, huh. But while you're trying to figure out the Tiny Tim
tip-toe-through-the-tulips way of doing it people are dying.

What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.
Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years. Well, except for when they were banned
from entering the country.
Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.
Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.

The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD, programs,
and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still not
complied. That's patience pal. Time's up.

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Frode wrote:
out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq though....? It clearly could have
been
handled better.

We saw what 12 years of "handling it better" accomplished: A brutal
dictator playing perpetual WMD hide and seek with an impotent U.N..

Impotent? During that period, the U.N. and individual states managed to
have hostilities between Iraq and Iran cease and arrange for prisoner
exchanges, stop the Iraqi ABC weapons program, launch the "food for oil"
program (which the U.S. several times obstructed, causing suffering to the
Iraqi people -- not their dictator), and keep Iraqi tempers down.
Note how free those 12 years were of Iraqi agressions.

See, brute force isn't always the only solution, and abstaining from using
brute force doesn't always mean impotence. If anything, I would think it's
the biggest impotents are those who feel a need for dick waving contests
using weapons as a symbol of their perceived potency.

Yes, Saddam Hussein and his sons were evil dictators.
NO, the US had no right to attack Iraq. While the government of Iraq was
evil, it was THEIR government, and not subject to US judgment.

--
*Art

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.

And they worked.

Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.

And they worked.

Well, except for when they were banned from entering the country.

After it was discovered that many of the US "inspectors" were spies who
reported strike coordinates back to the US -- this is even something the
"weapons inspectors" admit to, so there's little point in denying it.

Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.

1: Iraq is not Saudi Arabia any more than the U.S. is Canada. Learn some
geography.

2: Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq -- if anything, he despised
Iraq, and Iraqi leaders despised him. Not only do they belong to two very
separate muslim factions (bin Laden is Shiite, which were repressed by Iraqi
government), but Bin Laden also didn't have a *country* to run, which makes
the situation very different indeed. There's no links from Iraq to
terrorism -- the only weak link is the monetary compensation that Iraq has
given FAMILIES of Palestine suicide attackers who had their houses razed by
Israeli military, despite the FAMILIES being completely innocent.

Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.

Right. Bombs were clearly not the solution.

The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD,
programs,
and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still
not
complied.

Show me the evidence he hadn't complied. And please, do better than a
handful of conventional missiles that could reach 10% further than allowed
(still far from enough to threaten Israel). From all accounts, the weapons
programs *were* stopped, and the weapons *were* destroyed or buried. That
the Iraqi doesn't use the same form of bureaucracy as the US, and thus could
not provide the exact legal papers that the US expected isn't their fault --
it's the US expectations and understanding of different cultures that need
to be altered. Not all countries form $500 million committees and hire a
corps of lawyers and bureaucrats when they need to do something -- they give
the order, and it's DONE. Papers doesn't prove anything anyhow, as Blair's
and Bush's "paper evidence" against Iraq clearly showed.
(And even if they had produced the exact paperwork the US "wanted", would it
have been *believed*?)

Another country in the region has now had 36 years to comply with
resolutions, and still doesn't. Should that country be attacked too?

--
*Art

Arthur Hagen wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.


When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


Well, except for when they were banned from entering the country.


After it was discovered that many of the US "inspectors" were spies who
reported strike coordinates back to the US -- this is even something the
"weapons inspectors" admit to, so there's little point in denying it.

You're a great patsy for dictators. And no, the weapon inspectors did NOT
'admit' to it because it didn't happen.

You need to get a better source than Baghdad Bob.

Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.


1: Iraq is not Saudi Arabia any more than the U.S. is Canada. Learn some
geography.

I bloody well know where Iraq and Saudi are. Saudi is where our troops defending
the region and 'containing' Saddam were stationed, you sanctimonious idiot.

snip of irrelevancies)


Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.


Right. Bombs were clearly not the solution.

Right. Kicking his behind out sure as hell solved it though.



The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD,

programs,

and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still

not

complied.


Show me the evidence he hadn't complied. And please, do better than a
handful of conventional missiles that could reach 10% further than allowed
(still far from enough to threaten Israel).

It was HIS obligation to show compliance, not anyone elses to go in and
'discover' if he had.

From all accounts, the weapons
programs *were* stopped, and the weapons *were* destroyed or buried.

You are are a sucker fool. Every inspection team and the entire U.N. knows he
had the WMD programs. The only disagreement was on what to do about it. The U.N.
wanted 'more time', after 12 freaking years of that crap.

That
the Iraqi doesn't use the same form of bureaucracy as the US, and thus could
not provide the exact legal papers that the US expected isn't their fault --

Oh pulEEZE.

You mean like the nuclear docs they "didn't have" but were found in 1995 after a
defector told the inspectors where to look? Or the ones found buried in the home
flower garden?

it's the US expectations and understanding of different cultures that need
to be altered. Not all countries form $500 million committees and hire a
corps of lawyers and bureaucrats when they need to do something -- they give
the order, and it's DONE. Papers doesn't prove anything anyhow, as Blair's
and Bush's "paper evidence" against Iraq clearly showed.
(And even if they had produced the exact paperwork the US "wanted", would it
have been *believed*?)

Hey pal, having Iraqi trucks evacuate the building you're about to inspect while
you're blocked at the gate, and yes, they have FILM of it, isn't a 'paperwork'
problem.



Another country in the region has now had 36 years to comply with
resolutions, and still doesn't. Should that country be attacked too?

Besides my doubting you have the slightest clue as to what the resolutions
actually say and what type of resolution they are, they've been under attack for
50 years.

Arthur Hagen wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Frode wrote:

out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq though....? It clearly could have

been

handled better.

We saw what 12 years of "handling it better" accomplished: A brutal
dictator playing perpetual WMD hide and seek with an impotent U.N..


Impotent? During that period, the U.N. and individual states managed to
have hostilities between Iraq and Iran cease and arrange for prisoner
exchanges,

Iran and Iraq killing each other into exhaustion ended the war, not any 'U.N.
initiative'.

stop the Iraqi ABC weapons program,

Failed to stop it. Even the U.N. knows that as the last unanimous security
council vote showed.

launch the "food for oil"
program (which the U.S. several times obstructed, causing suffering to the
Iraqi people -- not their dictator),

Poppy cock. The U.S. did not 'obstruct' the food for oil program, which was OUR
idea, btw.

The Iraqi people suffered because Saddam was busy using the money to build
palaces, his WMD program, and socking the rest away just like he did when they
raided the bank prior to exiting the city.

and keep Iraqi tempers down.

And what would you know Iraqi 'temper' when anyone expressing dissatisfaction
with Saddam would get his tongue ripped out?

Note how free those 12 years were of Iraqi agressions.

Because we kept a huge force in the region. Who, btw, were shot at daily and Bin
Laden's stated reason for his 'jihad' against the US.

See, brute force isn't always the only solution, and abstaining from using
brute force doesn't always mean impotence. If anything, I would think it's
the biggest impotents are those who feel a need for dick waving contests
using weapons as a symbol of their perceived potency.

Tell that to the Iranians and Kuwaitis Saddam killed. Not to mention the Kurds
and the rest in his own country.


Yes, Saddam Hussein and his sons were evil dictators.

Ya got ONE thing right, at least.

NO, the US had no right to attack Iraq. While the government of Iraq was
evil, it was THEIR government, and not subject to US judgment.

You're a fool if you think the Iraqis 'chose' to be raped, tortured, and
murdered by Saddam and his henchmen.

In article ,
says...
Impotent? During that period, the U.N. and individual states managed to
have hostilities between Iraq and Iran cease and arrange for prisoner
exchanges, stop the Iraqi ABC weapons program, launch the "food for oil"
program (which the U.S. several times obstructed, causing suffering to the
Iraqi people -- ..."


By most accounts, it would seem Anonymous Coffee was busy lining the
pockets of the U.N, and making Saddam nice and comfy in the process.

http://www.unwatch.com/oil4food.html

"Oil, Food and a Whole Lot of Questions"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Maynard wrote:
Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.
And they worked.
When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.

Didn't the US find undocumented chemical weapons on its own soil recently?
When in a glass house and all that.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPzyX2uXlGBWTt1afEQIaZwCglpWG8uZRXfiHRGFAESCo4E 74CgoAoI/a
aO0f0XtZK4BJ8ulGfpx29W3l
=1gTK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

By most accounts, it would seem Anonymous Coffee was busy lining the
pockets of the U.N, and making Saddam nice and comfy in the process.

That was a recent report.. Go back to the start of the "Oil for Food"
then go back and look at all of the things that the USA had block'd going to
iraq.. Food and Medical supplies WERE being blockd and that's why the "Oil
for Food" program did start off.. the US enter'd the game thinking they
could starve or kill enough iraq people to make the hussies leave.. It didnt
happen and instead the country did suffer..
Okay so France and Russia DID play their parts in some of this too.. France
was making great profits from that program, and Russia were heavy into it,
and they are a country on the edge as it is, loosing something like that
could really harm them...
Bush wasnt the first person to call for the sanctions to be lifted after the
war!!
Now I know most americans feel that france really betray's the US on this
issue of "WAR".. The greatest statement I seen was from this guy in the
white house who said something along the lines of "We helped them when the
germans invaded them so they should support us on this issue".. But really,
didnt the americans OWE it to france after the french helped americans
become independent of the colonial states..?.. The odd thing is that I have
heard hard core americans say "no" it makes no difference that they helped
way back then because it was way back then!!!.. and that the last time the
US helped them it was recent WTF ...

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Arthur Hagen wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.

They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.


When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?


Well, except for when they were banned from entering the country.


After it was discovered that many of the US "inspectors" were spies who
reported strike coordinates back to the US -- this is even something the
"weapons inspectors" admit to, so there's little point in denying it.

You're a great patsy for dictators. And no, the weapon inspectors did NOT
'admit' to it because it didn't happen.

You need to get a better source than Baghdad Bob.

Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.


1: Iraq is not Saudi Arabia any more than the U.S. is Canada. Learn
some
geography.

I bloody well know where Iraq and Saudi are. Saudi is where our troops
defending
the region and 'containing' Saddam were stationed, you sanctimonious
idiot.

snip of irrelevancies)


Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.


Right. Bombs were clearly not the solution.

Right. Kicking his behind out sure as hell solved it though.

Did it.. Show me the proof of WMD
that's why US and British military people got killed.. sooooo

The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD,

programs,

and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still

not

complied.


Show me the evidence he hadn't complied. And please, do better than a
handful of conventional missiles that could reach 10% further than
allowed
(still far from enough to threaten Israel).

It was HIS obligation to show compliance, not anyone elses to go in and
'discover' if he had.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

You are are a sucker fool. Every inspection team and the entire U.N. knows
he
had the WMD programs. The only disagreement was on what to do about it.
The U.N.
wanted 'more time', after 12 freaking years of that crap.

They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
Sure it doesnt say what they "had" but the point was made that they ceased
and destroyed their WMD programs..
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

That
the Iraqi doesn't use the same form of bureaucracy as the US, and thus
could
not provide the exact legal papers that the US expected isn't their
fault --

Oh pulEEZE.

You mean like the nuclear docs they "didn't have" but were found in 1995
after a
defector told the inspectors where to look? Or the ones found buried in
the home
flower garden?

none of those documets are to anything recent, They kept the documents..
sooooo
Are you telling me that american biochemical research paperwork was just
desttroyed becasue they thought that bioweapons were bad.. I sure as hell
doubt it... ohhh but wait... I forgot... the only country that has a
goverment that's EVER used a WMD against another country is the usa.. that
makes them "Responsible Adults"

it's the US expectations and understanding of different cultures that
need
to be altered. Not all countries form $500 million committees and hire
a
corps of lawyers and bureaucrats when they need to do something -- they
give
the order, and it's DONE. Papers doesn't prove anything anyhow, as
Blair's
and Bush's "paper evidence" against Iraq clearly showed.
(And even if they had produced the exact paperwork the US "wanted",
would it
have been *believed*?)

Hey pal, having Iraqi trucks evacuate the building you're about to inspect
while
you're blocked at the gate, and yes, they have FILM of it, isn't a
'paperwork'
problem.

Really, So why didnt the lock downs (you know where the military were there
with the UN inspectors) work.. You do know that in most cases t hese planets
were fully surrounded and if you have a large movement of trucks going in
and out then that would have been neglectful of the inspectors.. Still IF
that happen'd then it could pose aproblem, yet that has never came about
before so your sources must be better than mine (or your getting fed from
ABC, NBC, CBS, BUSHRUS)


Another country in the region has now had 36 years to comply with
resolutions, and still doesn't. Should that country be attacked too?

Besides my doubting you have the slightest clue as to what the resolutions
actually say and what type of resolution they are, they've been under
attack for
50 years.