Happy Birthday America

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

Claw Jammer wrote:
Again, prove it. The death of iraqis is none of the US' concern.
Accepting the Iraqis asylum request is all you can do about that. As
well as offering humanitarian aid.
Out of sight, out of mind, eh Frode?

No, it's called "minding your own business". There's a difference between
stepping in to stop a husband pounding on his wife and beating up a husband
cause of an ongoing heated argument with his wife. Noone has the right to
attack a country based on nothing but "we don't like how you guys do
things". Tossing Saddam right back out of Kuwait was a completely
different, and justified, action. Iraq was the aggressor and in today's
world very little justifies going to war over. Putting an aggressing
country back in its place is one of those reasons. However, internal
affairs inside a country is just that, internal. If it's horrible enough,
the international community can act. And indeed if the US had produced
evidence of and attacked on grounds of gross crimes to humanity going on
inside Iraq, it would have been an entirely different story. That's *not*
what the US chose to do however. They chose to claim Iraq was a clear
danger *outside* of their own borders. They chose to claim Iraq had
terrorist connections. Both of which may have been true, but without
evidence to support those claims presented prior to or shortly after
hostilities they become invalid reasons. If you can't prove it, it doesn't
support your case.

This was the mind set of American foreign policy early during World War
II. Yet, there were those countries who would have us get involved!

Read above.

The US administration is behaving like a
teenager. Quick to judge, quick to action, completely ignorant of any
possibility of anybody older knowing better.
The very same could be said of your diatribe.

That's the same reaction one would expect from a teen having received a
talking to from an elder, but yet not being mature enough to realize the
actual contents and meaning of said conversation. Most teens unfortunately
need to learn by doing. What's even more unfortunate is that this "teen"
has the world's largest arsenal of ready-to-fire weapons of mass
destruction and a government fanatical in their complete belief that they
can never be or do wrong. In polls around the world Bush keeps coming in
with the higher percentage when the question is "Who do you believe to be
the greatest threat to world peace, Bush or Saddam?". One concrete example
is an internet poll in Time Magazine. Where the results of 61000 respondees
decided the greatest danger to world peace in 2003 is: North Korea 10.4%,
Iraq 17.9/%, The United States 71.8%. There's no conspiracy in this. This
is the world opinion the US are refusing to even see and until they do they
can't possibly begin to grasp the reason for it. It's like telling a bad
kid that bullying smaller kids in the schoolyard won't make you more
popular. They just don't get it until they mature.


- --
Frode

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

iQA/AwUBPz5ueuXlGBWTt1afEQKZZACcCgPCZE3noqwLnwtCFB0+Os NIeIQAnR6v
DlZuvCVcCtvHBUdjsfAGewCk
=yOgG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"noise" wrote in message news:3f32a804$0$23606

We send this token little hiccup of a force, not enough to
achieve much, just enough to get us on the terrorists'
revenge list. Thanks John, that's why they bombed Bali.

Actually, the extremist Muslim don't like (white) Australians because they
are sitting on land that should (as they say) belong to the Muslim Malays.
Well, according to their logic - if we weren't here - they'd be here.

The Muslims also hate our interference in East Timor and PNG - remember
them? The PNGers and Timorese helped out Anzac boys fight WW2 against the
Japanese. And the Americans did quite a bit to sink all those nasty Japanese
warships that were heading our way at the Battle of Coral Sea too.

Alway good to remember our allies, huh? Well, maybe not for some blokes.

In article ,
says...
"noise" wrote in message news:3f32a804$0$23606

We send this token little hiccup of a force, not enough to
achieve much, just enough to get us on the terrorists'
revenge list. Thanks John, that's why they bombed Bali.

Actually, the extremist Muslim don't like (white) Australians because they
are sitting on land that should (as they say) belong to the Muslim Malays.
Well, according to their logic - if we weren't here - they'd be here.

The extremist Muslims are butchering EACH OTHER...I suppose that puts
everyone else on their list by default.


And the Americans did quite a bit to sink all those nasty Japanese
warships that were heading our way at the Battle of Coral Sea too.

Alway good to remember our allies, huh? Well, maybe not for some blokes.

A heartfelt thanks! Personally, I don't have any difficulty
distinguishing my enemies from my allies. Some folks do.

Cheers,

CF

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

David Maynard wrote:

The only problem with the war on Iraq are the reasons. WMDs? None found
so far. Nothing. Zip. Nada. None found before attacking. None found in
the months after successfully occupying the country.

You *are* familiar with the word "hidden," aren't you?


You *are* familiar with the term "producing evidence", aren't you?

I notice you didn't answer my question but yes, I certainly am. That's why I
listened to, watched, and read the evidence presented, including the U.N.
Inspection Reports, congressional hearings, and personal testimony from various
inspectors.

Are we
supposed to take the US administration's promises they really are there,
but they just can't find them? That's not good enough for going to war.

You're trying to 'debate' an issue that was affirmed in every inspection report
and unanimously agreed to by the U.N. Security Council. You might as well give
it up. You lost: the U.N. said so.



Links to the WTC attack or
other terrorist activity outside of his own border? None. Zip. Nada.

Tell that to the victims of suicide bombings.
I suppose you don't consider harboring terrorists a 'link'.


How many foreign deaths have the US financing of abroad militant groups
lead to? Should we claim the US have been promoting terrorism too?

Besides that argument being a pile of crap, it is irrelevant to your false claim
and my rebuttal.


Saddam has yet to be proven a threat to anybody outside of his own
borders in any way at all.

Tell that to Iran, Kuwait, and Israel.


Focus lad, focus. We're not talking about prior to '91. We're talking about
'91-'03.

This is so typical of your 'side': Make a false claim and then change the
subject or claim 'modifications' when it's shown to be false.

You didn't say one bloody thing about 'recently', or any other time period. You
made a flat assertion that "Saddam has yet to be proven a threat... IN ANY WAY
AT ALL." (emphasis added). The unbounded claim is patently false. He WAS "proven
a threat" by virtue of starting two wars of aggression. And the reason he was
being supposedly 'contained' is because he was a threat.


In case you hadn't noticed, pal, the U.S. was already attacked; multiple
times. 9-11 was the last straw.


Please produce the evidence Iraq attacked the US. Prior to, including, and
after the WTC attacks. Hasn't it been agreed on what group did that and
didn't the world go to war in Afghanistan because of it? The WTC had
nothing to do with Iraq.

Same thing as above; you change the argument. You said it would be 'our fault'
if we take action and then end up being 'attacked'. I pointed out we have
already been attacked (for doing nothing). We are NOT at 'peace'.

Your assessment of 'who' is involved in 'what' is blindly naive. The whole
region is 'involved'.


What other terrorist acts on US soil apart from the WTC has been
perpetrated by foreign organizations?

You mean both times? Btw, U.S. embassies, wherever they are, are "U.S. soil" and
so are U.S. Warships but I suppose you figure that, off the 50 states, U.S.
interests are just 'fair targets' and 'tough luck', eh?


The OKC bomb? The Atlanta pipebomb?
The much covered Washington snipers? The unabomber? They were Iraqis?

No, and that's your absurdity, not mine.

had huge storages of ready-to-fire chemical weapons. The US had nothing
except general rumor and hearsay to back their claims up.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


That's just the point. There's no evidence to see.

You just proved my statement. I saw it.

The US has failed to
produce anything except "we believe this is so because... we can't show you
what our reasons are you just have to take our word for it and we'll show
you later". Which would've worked fine if "later" didn't turn out to be "as
soon as we've managed to convince everybody we never said what we did to
begin with and can find some other reason to claim we did it for".

That you insist on playing like The Three Monkeys with plugged ears and covered
eyes is your problem.


Fortunately I'm capable of making up my own mind. The parallels are very
obvious. It's the same way leaders have convinced the population that
aggression is the "only way" for a good number of wars.

If you really are, as you say, capable of making up your own mind then
you should also be capable of realizing that argument is a morally vapid
disingenuous lie wrapped in a half truth to make it appear palatable.


Just because you're too blind to see the correlation does not make it less
real.

And just because you refuse to see what's placed under your nose doesn't make
your paranoia real.

But again, you change the argument. You made an absolute claim about 'how wars
are started these days' and it's a false claim for the reasons I stated (but
that you snipped because it was irrefutable).

Further, you used it to 'prove' your claim that the administration is doing so
(I.E. that's the way it's done these days so they 'must be') but your premise is
false, so now you defend it by claiming the conclusion is still true simply
because you 'say so'. That's not only circular but the epitome of "unfounded."

In fact, most of the world apart from US citizens can see it just
fine.

'Most' of the world does not have a widely diverse and free press with access to
all the facts. And an unfortunately large portion of the world is heavily
influenced by leaders who have other agendas and sometimes ulterior motives;
including the enemy. Not to mention mindless knee jerk "U.S. is evil" demagogues.

That doesn't mean Bush equals Hitler. But he's using many of the same
propaganda mechanisms. The only reason Hitler was mentioned is because he
is the most recent and profiled personality to employ the same technique
for deceiving his constituents.

That is one of the great myths promulgated by your side. No, the 'technique'
Hitler used was absolute control over every means of communication and the
material presented. There's nothing even remotely similar to the U.S.


And the moral vapidity comes from the disingenuous attempt to suggest
that the two are equivalent.


Learning from history has nothing to do with a lack of morals.

Attempting to equate a defender with the attacker, or a murderous dictator with
the liberator, or the U.S. with Saddam, is morally vapid.


'The sky is falling' poppycock.


It's rather funny you don't realize you just described the US attempt at
claiming the same would be true if Iraq wasn't occupied.

Make a good sentence of it and maybe it will have some meaning.

Any government that starts to throw people in jail without even charging
the person with a crime,

How many German prisoners of war do you think were "charged with a crime" during
the time they were held?

And don't bother 'pointing out' that 'they' are not prisoners of war. The point
is that your, again generic, claim that no one can be held without being charged
with a 'crime"' is false.

as well as pushing through bill after bill to

They had to pass Congress just like every other bill that's "pushed through" and
the ones you are apparently railing about were passed when the House was still
under control of the Democratic party.

track its citizens every move,

An absurd claim. But not surprising as I've come to the conclusion that your
side is simply incapable of stating facts but are instead compelled to put
things in the most inflammatory manner possible regardless of whether it has any
relation to reality. As a result, facts themselves are never debated and the
discussion is reduced to nothing more than the throwing of wild accusations like
"1984 is on the way."

is one worth being very watchful of. Many
americans see it (I hear sales of encryption software is on the rise as a
result, but that's just hearsay), sadly many still do not.

The Constitution has always granted reasonable search and seizure rights to
government.

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

David Maynard wrote:

One can imagine all kinds of "could be" scenarios when you don't know, or
chose to ignore, reality


Sounds like what the US administration did when it comes to Iraq's WMD
programs and their supposed evidence for it.

No, they're your "let's pretend we're idiots and don't know a bloody thing"
speculations about Saddam.

If they didn't dream it up
they shouldn't have had a problem disclosing the evidence by now, should
they.

Besides the fact that they HAVE disclosed a number of things you apparently have
no idea how intelligence works. Disclosure gives potential adversaries clues to
the intelligence apparatus and personnel. For example, something as innocuous as
disclosing an intercepted message might reveal, to those who might not know,
that you can intercept messages on the type of equipment that was used. They
might be able to piece together where your intercept occurred and what vessel,
aircraft, or ground unit you used. Someone else might discover that you can
decipher the encryption being used, and that they use too. Etc. etc.


resolutions over the same period of time culminating in a unanimous vote
that Saddam was in serious breach: not 'once', not from a 'paperwork
problem', and not by 'accident', but by an intentional program of defiant
deception specifically intended to hide and protect his WMD programs.


Again, it hasn't been proven he's had one since the first gulf war.

You miss the point. The cease fire and U.N. terms do not require we 'prove'
anything. Saddam was to disclose, destroy, and show that he did. He didn't.

Thus
you can't pass sentence on his regime for anything but being reluctant.

Wrong.

And your disingenuous attempt to characterize his actions as 'reluctant' is like
saying Hitler was 'nothing but reluctant' to abandon his desire for world
domination.

Sure, he might have done it to hide existing programs

Which everyone knows to be the case.

or to destroy them to
save international face.

Patently absurd.

But that makes it an equal probability of 1)
hiding weapons and 2) destroying them.

Ridiculous.

In other words, not a conclusion one
can base an attack on. And, yes, personally I think three times the charm.
The third time he hindered inspectors in any way the coalition forces
should've rolled in and leveled a few of his palaces to make the point. But
that didn't happen.

The 'third time' had come and gone prior to 1998. And the only way "coalition
forces" could 'roll in' and 'level a few palaces' was the way it was done this year.

And 12 years later one can't just decide "well, we
should've done this 10-12 years ago,

Sure you can. Giving 12 years of chances to comply doesn't remove the option of
direct remedy.

let's go to war now for no real reason
based on the current situation".

Invalid premise.

There's no doubt Saddam was reluctant in every way. On the other hand
there's no evidence to support him being anything more than just
reluctant.

That's a statement that can only come from either pure ignorance or
disingenuous demagoguery.
1994 "We have no nuclear weapon program."
1995 U.N. "oh look, we found it."


The Iraqi admitted to having had a clandestine EMIS program in july 1991.
What they have kept denying is access to facts to show just far along they
had come. They've also consistently denyed its purpose was to produce
weapon-grade uranium. This was a rather obvious lie and the admission of
the EMIS program really nailed the coffin shut on that topic.

Nice that you at least recognize that lie but you misrepresent one little piece
of the pie as the whole meal. There was a lot more to his nuclear weapons
program that just the EMIS, and more than one means by which he was attempting
to obtain weapons grade material (and more than one means pursued to refine it).

Saddam repeatedly claimed to have abandoned ALL nuclear weapons program
activity. The 1994 "we found it" incident I refer to was the discovery of the
bomb design, and materials, he claimed did not exist.


What the inspectors have concluded, isn't that Iraq kept its nuclear
weapons program alive after the gulf war, but "the determination with which
the regime of Saddam Hussein intends to pursue programs to produce weapons
of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, once sanctions are lifted".

You take one sentence out of context and misinterpret it. They do not state
"he's doing nothing now;" they concentrate on the primary point which is that he
DOES intend to end up with nuclear weapons, one way or the other.

Noce the last four words. The program was in stasis due to the inspectors
and sanctions and would have remained so without the need for war.

It does not say that. But even if you wish to claim so, it would be simply 'on
faith' that the inspection regime could contain it. And the history of the
inspection regime is repeated underestimation of how far he had gotten, what he
had, and how much progress he was making.

I do
agree that it couldn't go on forever, of course.

Since you've realized it "couldn't go on forever," I'm going to clue you in on
"imminent threat." The imminent threat was that the inspection regime had
failed. We sent the troops over and that was when the 'last chance' inspectors
were reluctantly allowed back in but you can't keep troops there forever and
that is what Saddam was counting on. Just a 'little time' and the U.S. would
have to withdraw forces. Once withdrawn he could eject the inspectors again,
just as he had done multiple times before, and the odds were virtually nil that
forces would be re-sent full circle. Of course, if they were he could play that
stalling game again. At any rate, in the U.N., France had for years been
pressuring to remove all sanctions and the inspection regime entirely.

The 'imminence' was that, if it was not resolved at that time, the entire
inspection regime, and containment, would fall apart; leaving Saddam free to
openly and unrestrictedly pursue his WMD.

But there were certainly
options left, apart from war, if given some time.

You folks love to say that but never provide even a hint of what those other
"options" were.

That you're unable to imagine any means to hide, for example, artillery
shells filled with WMD chemicals from U.N. inspectors, who's movements
you have control over, within an entire country, and an army at your
disposal with which to do so, doesn't mean that Saddam's regime, which
had 12 years to refine the practice, couldn't figure it out.


Of course not. But nor does it mean they did it.

The inspection reports show they did.

What is blatantly obvious
is that it impaired his ability to have such weapons at the ready. He did
not fire a single one during the last war. Nor did he even try or it's a
sure bet the soldiers responsible for doing so wouldn't have bothered to
actually hide the weapons again before fleeing or being captured before
being able to fire.

You're going to be very surprised when the report comes out in 6 to 9 months.
One part that's already been leaked concerns the donning of protective gear by
coalition forces and it wasn't done for no reason. They had direct intercepts
from Saddam's central command TO his field commanders ordering them to launch
chemical weapons at U.S. forces.

That it didn't happen is a known fact. Why is another question. But your
conclusions are, of necessity, drawn from ignorance as no one, publicly at
least, knows.


Thus, goal accomplished and no need to go to war.

Since your premise is fraught with gaping flaws your conclusion is
necessarily invalid.


So where are these weapons, all set and ready to fire longrange missiles
with WMD warheads? The US administration prior to the war claimed they knew
exactly where to find proof.

No they didn't. That is another lie promulgated by your side. They specifically
and repeatedly said the stuff was hidden and perpetually moved around to PREVENT
discovery. Massive tunnel systems, underground bunkers, etc. Hell, they didn't
know those blasted jets were buried out there either, but they knew they HAD them.

At best it has been proven the US intelligence
amounted to complete hogwash. At worst it's been proven the US
administration knowingly lied to try to deceive the world.

No, that's simply your 'wish' because you 'wish' to discredit the U.S.

practical, impossibility of doing so in perpetuity, plus the fact that it
is flat impossible to 'lock down' an entire country, not to mention the
entire Middle East 'problem'.


It's a tricky prospect, of course. However it had worked for 12 years.

No it hadn't. Just because he hadn't launched a major tank attack again into
Kuwait doesn't mean he was 'harmless' and doing 'nothing'.

After the last war it's been proven beyond any doubt that they did not have
a ready capability of launching WMD weapons.

And 'proved beyond any doubt' HOW? In your dreams?

Not a single long range
missile has been located.

Hadn't found any buried jet fighters till last week either. And they're a dern
sight bigger.

Not a single WMD warhead. These may be buried in
the desert somewhere, true, but that doesn't constitute an active and
functional weapons program with strike capability.

Oh really, Mr. Weapons Expert? What? Sand 'corrodes' warheads or something? Of
course, maybe they're not morons and packed them before burial, eh? Duh? How
about putting them in a tunnel so they're nice and easy to just carry out? How
long does it take to open a box and slap the chemical shell into an artillery
piece? huh? And just how long does it have to take before you, the expert,
declare it without "strike capability?" 10 minutes? 2 hours?

Here's a thought. How about we dig a nice underground bunker and just drive the
blasted missile launcher into it, all mounted and ready to go, Eh? And he had 12
years to dig the whole country up.

Considering all the places we've found weapons stashes so far, schools,
hospitals, homes, etc. for all you know there's an outhouse in the desert
somewhere with a stack of chemical shells in it. Hell, since we know he buried
nuclear bomb material in a rose garden they might be in a freaking chicken coop
somewhere.

I don't know 'what really happened' but it only takes 15 seconds to know your
presumption 'it couldn't be done' is ka-ka.

There were plenty of
options (after slapping the UN around a bit) on resolutions that did not
involve stirring the hornets nest that is the middle east with bombs. I
fully agree the UN were too lenient. There is also no doubt at all that the
US went way overboard and attacked on false premise.

There you go again with the pollyanna 'but there was another way' whine without
coming UP with any other way.

Hey, President Clinton was the smartest President we ever had, he said so, and
if HE didn't get it done 'another way' then there must not have been 'another
way', right?

And that doesn't even count, in your 'cost estimate', the 'expense'
suffered by thousands upon thousands of Iraqis under Saddam, of the lives
lost to his sponsorship of suicide bombers, and on and on,


Again, prove it.

Prove what? That Iraqis suffered? You REALLY want to argue that one?

The suicide bombers? Everyone knows he paid the families of suicide bombers and
I suppose you missed all the bomb jackets they found.

The death of iraqis is none of the US' concern. Accepting
the Iraqis asylum request is all you can do about that. As well as offering
humanitarian aid.

Oh really? You must be positively livid about helping Kosovo then. And Molosovic
really HAD not ever threatened anyone outside his own country, ever. Never
attacked ANY neighbor.

Got your panties all in a bundle over helping Liberia too, I guess.

The US chooses war instead. Its humanitarian aid budget
per capita is about the lowest in the entire "western world". They didn't
go to war on Iraq out of humanitarian concerns. They went there for their
own agenda and tried to pull a fast one on the real reasons. If it works
out ok, that's great. Saddam's regime was a nasty one and if left alone for
a long enough time a clear threat to the region. Noone disagrees on that.

Good. Finally. So you see why it had to go.

But there were a good many political concernes that made going to war again
the absolute last resort.

It was. And putting up with it for 12 years is the proof of it.

The US administration is behaving like a
teenager. Quick to judge, quick to action, completely ignorant of any
possibility of anybody older knowing better.

12 years is not "quick."

In message , Frode
writes
Claw Jammer wrote:
Again, prove it. The death of iraqis is none of the US' concern.
Accepting the Iraqis asylum request is all you can do about that. As
well as offering humanitarian aid.
Out of sight, out of mind, eh Frode?

No, it's called "minding your own business". There's a difference between
stepping in to stop a husband pounding on his wife and beating up a husband
cause of an ongoing heated argument with his wife. Noone has the right to
attack a country based on nothing but "we don't like how you guys do
things".

Nor does any organized community have the right to revolt against their
constitutional head of state (as the current US did against Britain).

Wars have been sparked off for millennia on the principle of I don't
like you/what you do/what you have, etc. Why should the west have to
behave in any different fashion?

Tossing Saddam right back out of Kuwait was a completely
different, and justified, action. Iraq was the aggressor and in today's
world very little justifies going to war over. Putting an aggressing
country back in its place is one of those reasons.

Whether Iraq was the aggressor or not, the fact is that another parties'
aggression does not constitute justification for a third party to oust
the "aggressor". Iraq claimed and always referred to Kuwait as the 19th
Iraqi province, justifying their invasion to remove the illegal Kuwaiti
regime. So now who is in the right?

However, internal
affairs inside a country is just that, internal. If it's horrible enough,
the international community can act.

But didn't. Surely we should be discussing the failure of the UN to
bring about the utopian ideals of egalite, fraternite et liberte In a
post cold war era? In my opinion the UN should be actively rooting out
inhuman dictators throughout the world.

And indeed if the US had produced
evidence of and attacked on grounds of gross crimes to humanity going on
inside Iraq, it would have been an entirely different story.

Except the fact that any Tom Dick or Harry in Belgium can indict any
individual/organization for war crimes, even where the war is conducted
for humanitarian reasons.

That's *not*
what the US chose to do however. They chose to claim Iraq was a clear
danger *outside* of their own borders. They chose to claim Iraq had
terrorist connections. Both of which may have been true,

No maybe about it. The danger and connections did exist. The irony of
the terrorist connections is that Al Qaeda operatives are dying for the
cause of an Iraqi secular despot dethroned but that they had refused to
support the regime prior to the war.

but without
evidence to support those claims presented prior to or shortly after
hostilities they become invalid reasons. If you can't prove it, it doesn't
support your case.

This was the mind set of American foreign policy early during World War
II. Yet, there were those countries who would have us get involved!

Read above.

The US administration is behaving like a
teenager. Quick to judge, quick to action, completely ignorant of any
possibility of anybody older knowing better.
The very same could be said of your diatribe.

That's the same reaction one would expect from a teen having received a
talking to from an elder, but yet not being mature enough to realize the
actual contents and meaning of said conversation. Most teens unfortunately
need to learn by doing. What's even more unfortunate is that this "teen"
has the world's largest arsenal of ready-to-fire weapons of mass
destruction and a government fanatical in their complete belief that they
can never be or do wrong.

And yet the teen did not use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
BTW, it has been recently reported that the Iraqi Republican Guard had
been given orders to use chemical weapons. How does the mature Iraqi
authorization of chemical weapons usage square up against the teen, that
you are so scared of, failing to use part of his massive arsenal?

In polls around the world Bush keeps coming in
with the higher percentage when the question is "Who do you believe to be
the greatest threat to world peace, Bush or Saddam?".

A naive question that only stupid people answer. Let us rephrase the
question: would you rather live as a Shia Muslim or Kurd in the USA
under a government headed by G W Bush or would you prefer to live in
Iraq under a regime headed by any one of the three Hussein males?

One concrete example
is an internet poll in Time Magazine. Where the results of 61000 respondees
decided the greatest danger to world peace in 2003 is: North Korea 10.4%,
Iraq 17.9/%, The United States 71.8%.

The real question is not whether the USA is a danger but whether the
continuation of dangerous despotic regimes (N Korea, Iraq, etc.,) hell
bent on developing 20th century WMD constitutes a danger which the UN
will ignore and force the USA to take action at a future time. The
danger is not the USA but is the failure of the UN.

There's no conspiracy in this. This
is the world opinion the US are refusing to even see and until they do they
can't possibly begin to grasp the reason for it. It's like telling a bad
kid that bullying smaller kids in the schoolyard won't make you more
popular. They just don't get it until they mature.


--
Frode




--
Alistair Maclean

In message , David Maynard
writes
Frode wrote:

Saddam repeatedly claimed to have abandoned ALL nuclear weapons program
activity. The 1994 "we found it" incident I refer to was the discovery
of the bomb design, and materials, he claimed did not exist.


You can abandon a weapons research program and re-instate it at any time
you care. Once you have the research results you don't exactly forget
them and go back to square one.


But there were certainly
options left, apart from war, if given some time.

You folks love to say that but never provide even a hint of what those
other "options" were.


Another 12 years of sanctions? BTW, Iraq had the chance to comply and
have the UN lift sanctions but seems to have made more propaganda
mileage out of starving their own Kurdish and Shia peoples under the
banner of sanctions.


You're going to be very surprised when the report comes out in 6 to 9
months. One part that's already been leaked concerns the donning of
protective gear by coalition forces and it wasn't done for no reason.
They had direct intercepts from Saddam's central command TO his field
commanders ordering them to launch chemical weapons at U.S. forces.

That it didn't happen is a known fact. Why is another question. But
your conclusions are, of necessity, drawn from ignorance as no one,
publicly at least, knows.


Wasn't it Rumsfeldt who said that the speed of the US advance prevented
the Iraqi Republican Guard from following up on the order to use
chemical weapons. What I don't understand is where the shells were that
the Republican Guard were supposed to use (not that I'm querying the
reason for the war but that I want to know why the Iraqi leadership
thought that chemical weapons were with the Republican Guard when the
Coalition Forces have found any chemical shells associated with military
units?)


--
Alistair Maclean

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

David Maynard wrote:
Focus lad, focus. We're not talking about prior to '91. We're talking
about '91-'03.
This is so typical of your 'side': Make a false claim and then change the
subject or claim 'modifications' when it's shown to be false.

(Since we both agree the other's points above this was just bs there's no
point getting circular so skipping the top portion)

The subject covered in all of the thread that I've been involved in has
been the justification for the second gulf war. Not the first. Not prior to
the first. The one as of this year. You must've been really distracted if
you thought we were discussing the US' burden of evidence for starting the
first war. I think a few hundred Iraqi tanks in Kuwait covered that pretty
well.

In case you hadn't noticed, pal, the U.S. was already attacked;
multiple times. 9-11 was the last straw.
Please produce the evidence Iraq attacked the US. Prior to, including,
and after the WTC attacks. Hasn't it been agreed on what group did that
and didn't the world go to war in Afghanistan because of it? The WTC
had nothing to do with Iraq.
Same thing as above; you change the argument.

No, I don't. I asked you to support your claim that you have been attacked
multiple times by organizations proven to originate or be significantly
linked to the Iraqi regime. What are the "multiple times" you are refering
to? Where is the evidence proving Saddam's regime had anything to do with
them?

You said it would be 'our
fault' if we take action and then end up being 'attacked'. I pointed out
we have already been attacked (for doing nothing). We are NOT at 'peace'.

You had 1 terrorist act on your soil (not counting embassies) with a fair
amount of proof as to its source. You attacked that source with
international support and sympathies. The US then decided it wanted to
finish off Saddam as well, and went to Iraq with very little support and no
evidence to connect Iraq to any terrorist activity on US soil. There's no
evidence any groupings in Iraq previously attacked the US. If they do now
out of religious fanaticism the US provoked them to do so. It may have been
the last drop to cause the cup to flood from their perspective. That's why
the evidence needs to be very clear or you risk provoking groups previously
not interested in harming US citizens.

Your assessment of 'who' is involved in 'what' is blindly naive. The
whole region is 'involved'.

You can claim the same of an LA gang. "They're all involved in the
shootouts". You can't go arresting them all based on that though. You have
the burden of proof for every individual's involvement. The same goes for
said geographical region.

What other terrorist acts on US soil apart from the WTC has been
perpetrated by foreign organizations?
You mean both times? Btw, U.S. embassies, wherever they are, are "U.S.
soil" and so are U.S. Warships but I suppose you figure that, off the 50
states, U.S. interests are just 'fair targets' and 'tough luck', eh?

Obviously military craft are by definition legitimate military targets. If
an organization attacks a US ship in friendly or neutral waters, you are
entitled to find out which group and go after that group. Same thing if it
was a country that declared war on you. You're not entitled to attack any
country you wish for reasons you can't produce evidence of and justify.

Embassies in hostile regions are obviously targets as well. Albeit not
legitimate ones. Like any other criminal act performed by criminals you are
of course entitled to bring the perpetrators to justice in cooperation with
the country's local law enforcement. You don't go leveling entire cities in
doing so however anymore than you just burn down the worst neighborhoods in
your own major cities. Nor do you attack the country "we think they came
from" without a very good amount of evidence they are indeed from their and
are supported by the government there.

The OKC bomb? The Atlanta pipebomb?
The much covered Washington snipers? The unabomber? They were Iraqis?
No, and that's your absurdity, not mine.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a list of what terrorist acts you were
referring to above.

had huge storages of ready-to-fire chemical weapons. The US had
nothing except general rumor and hearsay to back their claims up.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
That's just the point. There's no evidence to see.
You just proved my statement. I saw it.

That's what the US has been telling the world. "I saw it" isn't much good
without producing the evidence to support it though. Based on "I saw it"
every child's word is proof santa is real and closets harbor monsters.

The US has failed to
produce anything except "we believe this is so because... we can't show
you what our reasons are you just have to take our word for it and we'll
show
That you insist on playing like The Three Monkeys with plugged ears and
covered eyes is your problem.

I'm glad the justice system doesn't work the way you wish international
opinion did. No trial would ever end up in anything but a deadlock since
anything mentioned by either side would require no proof apart from being
uttered in the courtroom.

Just because you're too blind to see the correlation does not make it
less real.
And just because you refuse to see what's placed under your nose doesn't
make your paranoia real.

Paranoia? Which nation went to war on another based on fear and unsupported
by evidence the fear was reasonable? Paranoia seems to be an accurate
description of the reasons for attacking Iraq since no evidence to show
they were worthy of fearing has been produced.

But again, you change the argument. You made an absolute claim about 'how
wars are started these days' and it's a false claim for the reasons I
stated (but that you snipped because it was irrefutable).

I snip when I see there's no point answering since you've taken a fanatic
stance. I'm not here to restate the same obvious points time and time
again. If you feel that is a victory, by all means bask in the glory.

Further, you used it to 'prove' your claim that the administration is
doing so (I.E. that's the way it's done these days so they 'must be') but

The burden of proof is not on me or the world, but on the US that initiated
the war. Nice try, but I suggest you show the evidence that Iraq was a
clear and present danger to the US at the time the US chose to go to war as
opposed to trying to derail the topic.

In fact, most of the world apart from US citizens can see it just
fine.
'Most' of the world does not have a widely diverse and free press with
access to all the facts.

Large parts of the world does, if the template is the geographical and
population mass of the US. Much larger parts than the US itself.

That is one of the great myths promulgated by your side. No, the
'technique' Hitler used was absolute control over every means of
communication and the material presented. There's nothing even remotely
similar to the U.S.

After the WTC the american public would've swallowed almost anything if
they felt they were giving payback to those that organized the attack.
Hitler did not have the luxury of such an act to build on. Polls prior to
the war were heavily in favor of not going to war on Iraq without
international support. After the war started the majority supported it to
support their troops. Currently, from what I've seen, it seems to be
steadily fading as the administration time and time again fails to produce
the evidence they promised.

And the moral vapidity comes from the disingenuous attempt to suggest
that the two are equivalent.
Learning from history has nothing to do with a lack of morals.
Attempting to equate a defender with the attacker, or a murderous
dictator with the liberator, or the U.S. with Saddam, is morally vapid.

Considering the US in this case were very clearly the attacker, that's a
ridiculous statement. The US war on Iraq is proactive, not reactive. If
there were sufficient evidence to support such an action that would've been
justifiable. Said evidence is what is lacking however, which is what this
is all about.

'The sky is falling' poppycock.
It's rather funny you don't realize you just described the US attempt at
claiming the same would be true if Iraq wasn't occupied.
Make a good sentence of it and maybe it will have some meaning.

Not my best sentence ever. But if you retake reading comprehension 101 and
you'll work it out I'm sure.

And don't bother 'pointing out' that 'they' are not prisoners of war. The
point is that your, again generic, claim that no one can be held without
being charged with a 'crime"' is false.

I'm not an expert on US law, but I do believe the 5th amendment clearly
states you can't be held unless indicted. The exception indeed being if at
service while in time of war. So unless those held are proven members of
army or militia and in active service, they can't constitutionally be held
without indictment. Since I'm not a US lawyer, nor want to spend the time
reading the entire amendment, I of course stand ready to be corrected. But
if doing so you'll need provide more than "you're wrong".

track its citizens every move,
An absurd claim. But not surprising as I've come to the conclusion that
your side is simply incapable of stating facts but are instead compelled
to put things in the most inflammatory manner possible regardless of
whether it has any relation to reality. As a result, facts themselves are
never debated and the discussion is reduced to nothing more than the
throwing of wild accusations like "1984 is on the way."

- From the Patriot Act:

"FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without
demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an
order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or
pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether
that person or entity is named in the order."

"The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including
terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in
the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an
ongoing criminal investigation."

"Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court
order."

The list goes on. And that's just the Patriot Act. The TIA's clear and
stated goal is to be able to automatically monitor people to such an extent
that the system can redflag "dangerous" behaviour. It includes the HumanID
program to recognize and catalog people based on facial recognition.

Combine the Patriot and TIA and you're getting very close to complete
surveillance of all, innocent or otherwise. It is rather cute that the T in
TIA was changed from Total to Terrorism. Unless you conveniently forget the
original meaning of the T its purpose is rather obvious isn't it. The name
clearly states it.

The Constitution has always granted reasonable search and seizure rights
to government.

Yes, reasonable. Covered above.


- --
Frode

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

iQA/AwUBPz+VUOXlGBWTt1afEQJkmgCg3h+XKYg1f02nZ06mNyJ5Wm Dkr0kAn2fp
kOSNGJeF/vKhEo3Cdtvt37k9
=TZI+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Frode" wrote in message
...
Then I'm sorry, if you can't disclose your evidence it is useless to you
in your case. No court passes judgement based on evidence you will not
show the court even in closed session.

Damn, someone better tell SCO... :-)

Regards,
--
*Art

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

Arthur Hagen wrote:
Then I'm sorry, if you can't disclose your evidence it is useless to you
in your case. No court passes judgement based on evidence you will not
show the court even in closed session.
Damn, someone better tell SCO... :-)

Considering the speed by which the head honchos sold off their stock I'd
say it's a fair bet they soon enough will.

- --
Frode

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

iQA/AwUBPz/t++XlGBWTt1afEQKARgCfQuHbzO4qKtGN6GxjuGwYSEZWBpMAm gMo
N6Xj/7avIS4cLWSGp7knekhn
=JnJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----