Stormig Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Poor are the countries in which freedom of expression depends on the permission of another! http://www.webdesignlab.co.uk/niksthings/masking.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Oh that site is freaking hillarious .... VERY nicely done!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 And who would those countries be, Stormy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Countries where you can't ridicule statesmen and politicians and expect to get away with it, MJ. Gotta admit it, you and I love doing that, why should they get away with their crap without serving for a good laugh? Don't know about you, but, feeling helpless with the ongoing Iraq crap, its and bits like these serve as some form of emotional closure for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Stormy, First I thought you where referring to some countries suppressing the freedom of expression of other countries. The Freedom of Speech and Expression is a beautiful thing. Many people, including our own nation, have paid high price to earn it, and as you know, we are still fighting for the freedom of the expression of our people in Armenia, which is being suppressed in unprecedented ways as we speak. However, the Free Speech and Expression bear sympathy and weight when they are exercised in a truthful and responsible manner. BTW, which part of the Iraqi developments do you consider to be crap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 It was observed by some people (and I cannot disagree with them) that Bush's team somehow managed to divert the post-9/11 hype from Osama (who is still out there somewhere and not brought to justice as was vowed) to Sodamn Insane. You hadn't been hearing about Saddam Hussein for years. Just what is it that urged Bush so all of a sudden? So, the beginning is crap. To base their arguments on the fact that Saddam has WMD is ridiculous. Pakistan and India are developing nuclear weapons and are flexing muscles in front of the other a bit too much. If one is to ask about whether Saddam has been complying with the resolutions of the U.N., another just has to remind that it is the weapons inspectors' job to do the research and come to a conclusion, not the U.S. to jump up and down the longer it takes inspectors to bring a report that suits its demands.The old mantra with the "Saddam is a mean old dictator" sucks, too, because not only is it not up to the U.S. to meddle in, but it was also the same U.S. that gave Saddam weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was again a dictator.The alleged connection with Osama also falls short of sense (and I'll try to quote the former Iraqi general exiled in the Netherlands if I can remember his name), but let us for an instant assume this is true, given this world we live in is one of no morals (this also being default in politics) and you see people banding up with the oddest, solely on the basis of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Osama's followers are all over the region, including Georgia and Azerbaijan, who do nothing about it. And, no, I do not trust the CIA's "information," just looking at what British intelligence can do, plagiarizing Ph.D. theses from "militarily intelligent students." That has got to be the scandal of the century. Furthermore, to further blow away this "it is not for oil, it is because of the fight against terrorism" bull, might I share with the people around me that I watched on TV a documentary on the background of this whole thing, starting from 1960, coming to today, where at the end it mentioned a report prepared by American authorities. This report deals with how to deal with Iraq, how to go about the oil resources, etc. This report was not only written but it was written before 9/11, btw.Why don't they just say it is about oil? Bush, in the wake of the worldwide protests last Sunday, said he understood the protesters and added that freedom of expression was a beautiful thing, and that some may think Saddam was no threat to the U.S., but that he disagreed. Based on WHAT, you doofus?? Because he doesn't want to give you his oil? We listened to the "CIA knows what it has to know" before the strike in Afghanistan, too. A lot of people supported that, too, and even now few see the megalomaniac they have unleashed. OH, and while the bargain with Turkey is going on, might I remind folks that one of the items last offered alongside the pay and/or the loans was cheap oil straight from Iraq. WHOSE OIL IS THAT?? The U.S. does not own the oil, it belongs to the Iraqi people, how can you funnel that oil to Turkey!?? That goes beyond "managing"! I just hope this doesn't cause a chain reaction that threatens every country in the region. The general I mentioned above said not to worry, but you never know. That general also said that the message the U.S. was to give the people of Iraq was important. A "we could help you overthrow Saddam to restore democracy" would be welcome (though even then it is not up to the U.S.), but up until now everything, from the talk of the oil to who deploys troops where, played into Saddam's hands. I liked what Gore Vidal said in a recent interview with CNN. It was something to the effect of, "Some Americans think the U.S. has a god-given right to set things right in the world. Well, even if, I say, start at home." Bush is the lost link between humans and apes. That made me feel better! Now, if only Bush and his team had more sex and relieved themselves of their tension, I could call my neighbour's brat a monkey! In short, it is crap from beginning till end. After all of this, my sense of trust has been exhausted, and I wish all of the team to hell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 23, 2003 Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Dear Stormy, I think the allegations of diverting the attention from 9/11 and “hype” (what hype?) from Osama Bin Laden are baseless. In the earlier stages of the struggle with Osama, there was a visible enemy willing to engage in the open. Currently, the enemy has taken refuge primarily in the uncontrollable territories of Pakistan – so called “non man’s zone” and the character of their neutralization is different - there is no charade of televisable actions that one can bring to demonstrate “no-diverted actions.” Al Quaida is reorganizing and changing its signature and the terrain of engagement. So do the US intelligence and other services. The argument that “one was not hearing from Saddam Hussein for years” is at the core of the issue (one can argue that one was not hearing from Osama before 9/11). That is exactly where the problem starts. Saddam Hussein was given card blanch since 1991 to do whatever he may manage to do. The primary reason is that since 1991, US has not had coherent foreign policy and has not followed up on its obligation to oversee Iraq’s disarmament as contemplated by the surrender treaty signed by Saddam in 1991. Under such circumstances the problems don’t dissipate on their own, but become worse – North Korea’s example is a perfect demonstration of it. (Seems like, now, Iran is joining the camp skillfully using the circumstances). It is true that not only Iraq has WMD, and it is unfortunate. However, in the recent history, only Iraq has used them and only Iraq is perceived as a treat to its neighbors, while India and Pakistan are just on the path of mutual containment and no third country perceives them to be a thread to herself. I think you totally misunderstand what weapons; inspection means. Weapons’ inspectors duty is to verify that the known weapons have been destroyed. For example, this is what they were doing in the period of Soviet-American disarmaments – piles of missiles and warheads where being destroyed in the open, in the presence of inspectors. And even years later, one could go to the sites and observe the hills of resulted metal scrap. This is what inspectors do. Inspectors don’t come up with political decisions – they have a sole obligation to testify that the weapons subject to discussion have been indeed destroyed. On these grounds, the inspectors have unequivocally claimed that the weapons subject to interest are still unaccounted. This statement concludes their mission. The rest is to the politicians to decide. Therefore, I think the inspectors have to be left out of the equation, and if one is interested, one has to try to understand what is causing the real stalemate at the UN, which is the most important and corrupt international organization that we know of in the recent history – if needed I can bring arguments to support such allegation. The fact that US gave Saddam Hussein certain weapons, doesn’t serve as an excuse today for the US not to meddle into the situation, now. However, the source of some of the alleged weapons is highly questionable. Al Qaeda is, allegedly, directly associated with the Iraqi regime – most notably through the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which in the recent history has merged with Al Qaeda and is currently actively operating on the territory of Iraq. True, they are operating elsewhere to – in Georgia, for example. However, the ones on the territory of Georgia are not perceived as direct threat towards the US (but rather Russia) and, additionally, a US military contingent is currently stationed in Georgia, trying to deal with the issue corresponding to the proportions of the threat. You are referring to the British incident of plagiarizing someone else’s analysis or evidence. It is very embarrassing for the British. However, it doesn’t mean that their allegations or evidence did not correspond to the truth. You are also referring to some documents that I have no knowledge of, therefore cannot comment. However, we are back to that “big, ugly, sinful Oil…” In 1991, the US troops totally demolished the Iraqi resistance and it required no serious effort to take Baghdad, and distribute the Iraqi Oil the way the winners would want. However, the US government stopped right there and didn’t do it, while having a perfect opportunity. Furthermore, rather than cutting a deal with Iraq, and forcing it to sell its Oil inexpensively, at least through the expansion of the Food-for-Oil program, which still is an opportunity, US and UK (primarily) restricted the Iraqi sales of Oil to the world, understanding very well that it would increase the Market Power of the Saudis. Furthermore, it is established that when losing the war, Iraq may blow up its oil wells. Don’t you think that the “oil argument” may be not only the most far fetched, but the most incompetent? For example, has any alleging party done simple arithmetic to analyze how much should the US spend to invade Iraq, then how much should it spend to upgrade the Iraqi oil infrastructures, which undoubtedly will suffer in the war, as to claim that US has economic incentives to go to war under the circumstances of record US budget deficits? About the Iraqi oil and Turkey. Obviously, Turkey is Oil starved country. It is obvious that Turkey needs cheap oil – everyone does. Turkey is demanding inexpensive oil after the war? Most likely. What is the criminal intent here and what is so bad that the US would not oppose to it? Or do you mean that after the war, “US will distribute cheap Oil only to Turkey and herself?” What is the problem here? In any case, I don’t have a lot of comments, since I have a habit of not talking about the issues that I don’t know enough about and, and I can guarantee you that I know about Oil a little more than you do. By the way, if you are really interested in the subject of Oil and Iraqi war-no-war, I would recommend you doing some research into the Iraqi-French and Iraqi-Russian deals. About the region… It is everybody’s hope and wish that this war is not only going not to cause a chain reaction, but to the contrary it is going to promote long-waited stability. The segmentation of the Middle Eastern geopolitics and geoeconomy is the direct lose of the people of the region – this is the worst region in the history of mankind with the worst hatred and problems. Do you think that all this region is missing now is weapons of mass distraction? I don’t know what some retired general is talking about on TV. However, Iraqi people do need democracy to the extend that they can digest it. I would be surprised to think that this is such a bad thing to want. However, the US is not trying to establish democracy in a country where there is no culture for democracy. It is not the mission of US. The US concerned is the security of the US and the region. Otherwise, there are dozens of despots on despotic and totalitarian regimes in Africa and elsewhere. I don’t know who Gore Vidal is. Never have heard of him. What I know however, that there is an obnoxious leftism on the rise in the US and, especially in Europe. There is an obnoxious anti-Americanism, especially in Europe. I remember about 10 years ago I was out for a drink or two with some Swedish colleagues. They claimed they hated US. I asked why? Their response was very direct – “They are too rich, and we hate rich people.” More I look at Europe, and I travel to Europe. This is the conclusion I come to – at least some of the European countries. Finally, I find very sorry that a person of your intelligence and character would resort to such expressions as “monkeys and apes” when expressing yourself on such serious issues as the world politics and peace and war are. I, for one, have much higher expectations from you. P.S. I mean to call UN not "most important" but most impotent. [ February 23, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MJ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 quote:I think the allegations of diverting the attention from 9/11 and “hype” (what hype?) from Osama Bin Laden are baseless.MJ, in order for there to be no internal resistance, Americans have to be served something, even if half-baked. Here I would have liked to insert the URL of an article about daily American paranoia, habits that set it apart from the rest of the world when for decades it has been so geographically detached from the rest of the world. quote:In the earlier stages of the struggle with Osama, there was a visible enemy willing to engage in the open. Currently, the enemy has taken refuge primarily in the uncontrollable territories of Pakistan – so called “non man’s zone” and the character of their neutralization is different - there is no charade of televisable actions that one can bring to demonstrate “no-diverted actions.” Al Quaida is reorganizing and changing its signature and the terrain of engagement. So do the US intelligence and other services. I'm not sure about the relevance of that. At any rate, little has been accomplished, IMHO, without the treatment of Saudi Arabia in the same manner. Nobody dares to confront Saudi Arabia, because they are ever more so steeped in this Al Qaeda business than any anti-American in Iraq could hope to be, and we know what that means. Could ABush dare to update his blahblah and cite Saudi Arabia once in there? Please? At any rate, two Januaries ago, Blair was told by the U.S. that there was no justification for going into Iraq. This is the article I read last August, and it mentions Saudi Arabia more than once and it quotes one certain inspector: quote:IRAQ: THE LYING GAME John Pilger on the deceit used to justify a war against Saddam Hussein By John PilgerTHE Blair government was told in January by the Americans that there was no justification for attacking Iraq in the "war on terrorism" and that their main aim was getting rid of Saddam Hussein who stood in the way of the West's control of Middle Eastern oil wealth.THEIR MAN: SaddamThis partly explains why Blair abandoned presenting to Parliament a famous "dossier" in which "the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is simply vast".The dossier is no more than a stream of warmed-over assertions and deceptions, supplied by Washington. According to reliable intelligence sources in another Western country, who were privy to the same communications, the Central Intelligence Agency has made clear that there is "no credible evidence" justifying an attack in Iraq.While Blair has continued to repeat propaganda that Iraq is a threat to the region and to what he calls "civilisation", the truth has long been an open secret. On February 5 last, the New York Times reported: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda.While Blair has claimed that Iraq has rebuilt its arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction", those who advise him know full well this is nonsense. And if Blair himself is not aware of this, this begs the question: what kind of prime minister is he?They have read the evidence of Scott Ritter, who as senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years, is uniquely placed to assess how much of a danger the Iraqi regime represents.RITTER, an American and international authority on weapons disarmament, personally led the inspections, investigations and destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes.On July 23, he said: "There is no case for war. I say that, not as a pacifist, or someone who is afraid of war. I've been to war with the US Marine Corps. Moreover, I'm a card-carrying Republican, who voted for George W. Bush for president. More important, I believe in truth."The UN weapons inspectors enjoyed tremendous success in Iraq. By the end of our job, we ascertained a 90-95 per cent level of disarmament. Not because we took at face value what the Iraqis said. We went to Europe and scoured the countries that sold technology to Iraq until we found the company that had an invoice signed by an Iraqi official. We cross-checked every piece of equipment with serial numbers. That's why I can say that Iraq was 90-95 per cent disarmed. We confirmed that 96 per cent of Iraq's 98 missiles were destroyed."As for chemical weapons, even if Iraq had succeeded in hiding stocks of sarin and tabun nerve agents, these chemicals have a shelf life of five years; after that they deteriorate and become useless gunk."Ritter does not deny that Iraq could have begun to reconstitute its weapons programmes. "But they would have to start from scratch because they don't have the factories any more, because we destroyed them (including the research and development plant). If they tried that, the evidence is readily detectable. The technology is available; if Iraq was producing chemical weapons today on any meaningful scale, we would have definitive proof to show, plain and simple; and there is none."Blair must also be aware of the fact that the international Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons programme "efficiently and effectively". When he and Bush "demand" the return of the UN inspectors to Iraq, what they they omit to say is that the inspectors were never thrown out by Iraq, but ordered out by the UN after it was discovered they were being used as a cover for American spying.Absurdity is never far away in Bush's world. His Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argues that the absence of evidence simply confirms that the nefarious Saddam has cleverly hidden his arsenal in caves and on the backs of lorries. "The absence of evidence," says Rumsfeld, "is not evidence of absence."The second biggest lie is Iraq's "threat to the region". Blair and Bush repeatedly claim this as if they are echoing the fears of regional leaders. The opposite is true.In March, the Beirut summit of the Arab League sent a clear message that all 22 governments wanted to see an end to the conflict with Iraq, which they no longer regarded as a threat. Saudi Arabia and Iraq have since re-opened their common border. Iraq has agreed to return Kuwait's national archives and to discuss the issue of missing people. Syria and Lebanon have re-established full relations with Iraq. Jordan's national airline flies five times a week between Amman and Baghdad."THE unmentionable truth is that the entire Gulf and Middle East is being turned upside down, not by any perceived threat from Iraq, but by American obsessions with replacing Saddam Hussein.He was their man, a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favourite coup". Moreover, he was sustained in power during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior and Margaret Thatcher, who gave him all the weapons he wanted, often clandestinely and illegally; in Washington, the relationship was known as "the love affair".When I was in Iraq in 1999, I met an assistant hotel manager whose sardonic sense of western double standards was a treat."Ah, a journalist from Britain!" he said. "Would you like to see where Mr Douglas Hurd stayed, and Mr David Melon - (he meant Mellor) - and Mr Tony Newton, and all the other members of Mrs Thatcher's government... These gentleman were our friends, our benefactors."This man has a collection of the Iraqi English-language newspaper, the Baghdad Observer, from the "good old days". Saddam Hussein is on the front page, where he always is. The only change in each photograph is that he is sitting on his white presidential couch with a different British government minister, who is smiling a smile uncannily similar to that of his murderous host.There, in yellowing print, is Douglas Hurd twice - on the couch and on page two, bowing before the tyrant. And there is the corpulent David Mellor, also a Foreign Minister, on the same white couch in 1988. While Mellor, or "Mr Melon" as the assistant manager preferred, was being entertained by Saddam Hussein, his host ordered the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja. News of this atrocity the Foreign Office tried to suppress and the US State Department tried to blame on Iran. "Please give Mr Melon my greetings," said the assistant manager.The 1994 Scott Inquiry into Britain's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein found that deception was widespread among senior British officials and diplomats. One of those commended by Sir Richard Scott for the honesty of his evidence was the former head of the Iraq Desk in Whitehall, Mark Higson, who described "a culture of lying" in the Foreign Office.Nothing has changed under Tony Blair. The Foreign Office has consistently lied about the inhuman effects of the American-driven embargo on the Iraqi civilian population. It has lied about the rise in the number of cancers in southern Iraq, the "Hiroshima effect" of depleted uranium, a weapon of mass destruction used by British and American forces during the Gulf War. It has lied about the vast amounts of humanitarian goods denied to Iraq, even though the UN Security Council has approved them. These include cancer assessment and treatment, medical equipment, and equipment that would allow Iraq to clean up its contaminated battlefields.ON the issue of Iraq, the likeness between Thatcher's Tories and Blair's New Labour is remarkable. In 2000, Peter Hain, a Foreign Office minister and a zealous supporter of the embargo on the civilian population, blocked a parliamentary request to publish the full list of the British companies that had helped to sustain Saddam Hussein in power.Just as the Foreign Office under the Tories tried to hinder reports of Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds from getting into the media (Foreign Office officials even questioned the "authenticity" of news photos), their successors under New Labour have questioned the veracity of United Nations studies reporting the death of children as a result of the American-driven embargo; and they play down the prospect of the new humanitarian disaster awaiting the Iraqi people when the Americans invade. Four years ago, the Pentagon told President Clinton that, if he invaded Iraq, he should expect "collateral damage" (civilian deaths) of up to 10,000 innocent people.These days, various Saddam Hussein look-alikes are to be seen being greeted at the Foreign Office. Several are generals who served under the tyrant and would, if there was international justice for the West's friends as well as its enemies, be convicted of war crimes. A new, obedient thug is being groomed to rule Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil - the "prize" on which the insatiable economies of the developed world, especially the United Sates, rely.Why is there an urgency about this attack? Is it true that the Bush administration needs something to go right with its rampage against "terror". There is another reason, which is seldom reported. This is the dire state of the world's number one source of oil, Iraq's neighbour, Saudi Arabia. This medieval throwback is America's most important client in the region, almost as important Israel; and Washington is losing control.SAUDI Arabia is also the home of al-Qaeda, most of the September 11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden. Its importance to the US is demonstrated in the close ties of many in the Bush administration with "big oil" and the Saudi sheikhs. George Bush Senior, a consultant for the giant oil industry Carlyle Group, has met the bin Laden family on several occasions.Not surprisingly, no American bombs fell on Saudi Arabia; impoverished Afghanistan was the easy option that America prefers.Because of the American connection with Saudi Arabia, the reaction and opposition within the deeply fundamentalist kingdom has been growing. Al-Qaeda probably enjoys support or influence among a majority of the ruling families. The Americans are desperately urging the caretaker ruler, Prince Abdullah, to "modernise" - at present, women are not allowed to drive and you can lose your head for apostasy. But the American pressure is having the opposite effect; popular support for al-Qaeda is unabated.George W Bush and his own unelected, Christian fundamentalist regime face a dilemma. An attack on Iraq and conflict in the Middle East would provide a timely boost for American's military-industry-complex, for which the Senate has voted an historic increase in expenditure of £24billion. It would also divert attention from a sick economy and the corporate corruption scandals in which Bush and his vice-president are immersed up to their necks.However, an attack on neighbouring Iraq could also give al-Qaeda the moment they have been waiting for and allow it to take over Saudi Arabia through proxies and control the most important oil fields on Earth. It goes almost without saying that Bush's dilemma does not include consideration for the thousands of Iraqis who will die under the American cluster bombs and depleted uranium tipped explosives.It is naive to expect Tony Blair to say anything about this: to tell us the truth. However, people all over the world are stirring. A clear majority of the British people oppose the latest proposed homicidal adventure by the United States, and the complicity of their own government. Silence is no longer an option. "Our lives begin to end," said Martin Luther King, "the day we become silent about things that matter."www.johnpilger.com quote:The argument that “one was not hearing from Saddam Hussein for years” is at the core of the issue (one can argue that one was not hearing from Osama before 9/11). That is exactly where the problem starts. Saddam Hussein was given card blanch since 1991 to do whatever he may manage to do. The primary reason is that since 1991, US has not had coherent foreign policy and has not followed up on its obligation to oversee Iraq’s disarmament as contemplated by the surrender treaty signed by Saddam in 1991. Under such circumstances the problems don’t dissipate on their own, but become worse – North Korea’s example is a perfect demonstration of it. (Seems like, now, Iran is joining the camp skillfully using the circumstances). So why an INVASION, MJ? And isn't it the U.N., corrupt as it is, to follow up on the disarmament? (And it has!) It has been an invasion America has been calling for, for perhaps a good six months now. And the only reason why the U.S. has to rely on NATO is because of this "fight on terrorism," otherwise it has all the hell I give it to go it alone. And if this is about Al Qaeda through and through, no need for the approval of U.N., that is between the U.S. and them. Former lovers' fights can be ferocious. I don't know of a second country in the world (Blair is not a country) that perceived Al Qaeda as a threat and feels as threatened by Al Qaeda to the extent that the U.S. does (and I won't go into why so I don't have to be called an anti-sumpin). We all very well know we have not been "not hearing" from the U.S. since it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What was the latest record of the number of countries the U.S. had bombed? 19? And what is the result, MJ? More railing for more of the same because of the induced chronic amnesia of the American people. I'm impressed.So why waste time with inspectors since invasion has been decided upon? And the intrinsic flaw in your argument comes from the insinuation that an invasion is a remedy to the fact that disarmament hasn't been enforced. How about we pick up the pace - have some reports, then disarm, and then castigate if Iraq refuses to cooperate? NOOO! Who is going to punish the U.S. itself for being so lax, and the U.S. itself because it sees itself as the one responsible for the disarmament (reached from your own words). This is basically making up the excuse as you go along. The scenario would be as follows:[u.S.:] No disarmament carried out? But it has been over a decade. Where have we been all along. Let's go in there.[somebody else*:] No, that is aggression against a sovereign nation.[u.S.:] Well then, what to do?[somebody else:] We don't know about the disarmament. This has to be assessed.[u.S.:] Alright, call on the U.N. to send the inspectors back (as if they were 'kicked out'). U.N., we're going in there.[u.S.:] Well, how is it going?[inspectors] No finds yet.[u.S.:] What! How can that be? But we have to go in there![inspectors:] Excuse us?[u.S.:] I mean, how can there be no finds? There was no disarmament.[inspectors:] At this point it is difficult to reach that very conclusion, especially given the course of previous inspections.[u.S.:] Well then, hurry up, reach a conclusion, I wanna invade.[inspectors:] If we may be allowed an opinion, we very much wish that the Iraqi officials cooperate with us to reach conclusions as swiftly as possible.[u.S.:] Aha! They are not cooperating! They're itching for an invasion![inspectors:] Here is our umpteenth report.[u.S.:] What! Still no finds? Now I am getting mad.[somebody else:] Protests all across the globe in opposition to the pending invasion.[u.S.:] I don't agree! We're going to find the arms![somebody else:] If we may be allowed an opinion, the bad outcomes of this war may far exceed the benefits, and an invasion is not in order.[u.S.:] But we have to invade! It is written![somebody else:] Where?[u.S.:] Erm,... arhgh... In the U.N. resolution![somebody else:] Yeah right. Why don't you go pick on someone your own size and look at Saudi Arabia who cheats on you with Al Qaeda?! Some "ally"![u.S.:] But of course Saudi is an ally. Just like the ole "friendly dictators" of Latin America. *May be world opinion. quote:It is true that not only Iraq has WMD, and it is unfortunate. However, in the recent history, only Iraq has used them and only Iraq is perceived as a treat to its neighbors, while India and Pakistan are just on the path of mutual containment and no third country perceives them to be a thread to herself.Iraq used weapons against its own civilians, and perhaps even today in China nuclear tests are being carried out such that impact to civilians IS perpetrated (I'm not saying "without much concern for civilians"), in Xinjiang. We're talking "deliberate" here. Might China get one-tenth the finger shaking Iraq has? And who appointed the U.S. to speak on behalf of Iraq's neighbours anyway? Or was the U.S. ever a neighbour to Iraq? I must've missed it, but it must only be expected. quote:I think you totally misunderstand what weapons; inspection means. Weapons’ inspectors duty is to verify that the known weapons have been destroyed. For example, this is what they were doing in the period of Soviet-American disarmaments – piles of missiles and warheads where being destroyed in the open, in the presence of inspectors. And even years later, one could go to the sites and observe the hills of resulted metal scrap. This is what inspectors do. Inspectors don’t come up with political decisions – they have a sole obligation to testify that the weapons subject to discussion have been indeed destroyed. On these grounds, the inspectors have unequivocally claimed that the weapons subject to interest are still unaccounted. This statement concludes their mission. The rest is to the politicians to decide. Therefore, I think the inspectors have to be left out of the equation, and if one is interested, one has to try to understand what is causing the real stalemate at the UN, which is the most important and corrupt international organization that we know of in the recent history – if needed I can bring arguments to support such allegation. I did not say the inspectors are assigned any other task. The "weapons unaccounted for" has been addressed by Ritter. Today's inspectors merely give the feeling of being sent there out of formality. And all these tasks are being crammed down their throats to accomplish more in record time so that the U.S. doesn't get angry. Like we cared. quote:The fact that US gave Saddam Hussein certain weapons, doesn’t serve as an excuse today for the US not to meddle into the situation, now. However, the source of some of the alleged weapons is highly questionable. Isn't it funny that the U.S. brings all of this down upon itself, just like everyone brings their bad neighbours down upon themselves? Osama and Saddam, I mean. Good pals as long as they sit, roll, and bark when told to. Gotta be more careful whom to sleep with. U.S. may give weapons to Saddam if he serves U.S. interests, but country X may not give weapons to Saddam even if he serves X's interests, we need the approval of the U.S. first, whoever the U.S. thinks it is. Listen to what the U.S. says but do not do what it does. quote:Al Qaeda is, allegedly, directly associated with the Iraqi regime – most notably through the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which in the recent history has merged with Al Qaeda and is currently actively operating on the territory of Iraq. True, they are operating elsewhere to – in Georgia, for example. However, the ones on the territory of Georgia are not perceived as direct threat towards the US (but rather Russia) and, additionally, a US military contingent is currently stationed in Georgia, trying to deal with the issue corresponding to the proportions of the threat. Too bad (or is there no need?) that Georgia and Azerbaijan have no weapons to be stripped of. And Georgia doesn't have oil, either! quote:You are referring to the British incident of plagiarizing someone else’s analysis or evidence. It is very embarrassing for the British. However, it doesn’t mean that their allegations or evidence did not correspond to the truth. I see no hope there whatsoever. I don't distinguish between the British and the Americans in this arena. Either you have been deceived or you have not, cannot be a little deceived any more than you can be a little pregnant or something. All along, the world is told that the intelligence services serve the countries' best interests and there's no deception, maybe some mishaps here and there whereupon ears are boxed immediately. This incident, however, is not just embarrassing, for it is the tip of the iceberg which demonstrates how seriously they take not resorting to deception (and, yes, serving someone else's work instead of doing it yourself is just that) - it's there, and goodness knows what else we've been fed all along. quote:You are also referring to some documents that I have no knowledge of, therefore cannot comment. However, we are back to that “big, ugly, sinful Oil…” In 1991, the US troops totally demolished the Iraqi resistance and it required no serious effort to take Baghdad, and distribute the Iraqi Oil the way the winners would want. However, the US government stopped right there and didn’t do it, while having a perfect opportunity. Furthermore, rather than cutting a deal with Iraq, and forcing it to sell its Oil inexpensively, at least through the expansion of the Food-for-Oil program, which still is an opportunity, US and UK (primarily) restricted the Iraqi sales of Oil to the world, understanding very well that it would increase the Market Power of the Saudis. Furthermore, it is established that when losing the war, Iraq may blow up its oil wells. Don’t you think that the “oil argument” may be not only the most far fetched, but the most incompetent? For example, has any alleging party done simple arithmetic to analyze how much should the US spend to invade Iraq, then how much should it spend to upgrade the Iraqi oil infrastructures, which undoubtedly will suffer in the war, as to claim that US has economic incentives to go to war under the circumstances of record US budget deficits? I do not know, I do not buy into the given "reasons," and that leaves us with noticing that the U.S. is already making shares in the oil. Additionally, you don't always realize the design, if at all. Few people today can explain why in 1960 those boundaries were drawn that way by the British - Kuwait separate from Iraq, that is. Yes, there WAS a geographic region compositely known as the Iraqeyn, and Kuwait was no separate part of it historically, even if historically there was no state called Iraq. Some people would say there was indeed some design. Why not? An open-ended ticket which the U.S. through Ms. Glaspie used willingly. Or maybe there indeed was a misunderstanding (but I cannot buy it) as Ms. Glaspie once said in the ocean of her utter silence ever after, and silence means admittance to guilt. Ms. Glaspie is America's more-than-embarrassment. At the end of the day, what do I know is that there's a major stink, and it may or may not have been packaged nicely beforehand. quote:About the Iraqi oil and Turkey. Obviously, Turkey is Oil starved country. It is obvious that Turkey needs cheap oil – everyone does. Turkey is demanding inexpensive oil after the war? Most likely. What is the criminal intent here and what is so bad that the US would not oppose to it? Or do you mean that after the war, “US will distribute cheap Oil only to Turkey and herself?” What is the problem here? In any case, I don’t have a lot of comments, since I have a habit of not talking about the issues that I don’t know enough about and, and I can guarantee you that I know about Oil a little more than you do. My problem with the allocation of oil (and what I see to be the crux of the matter) is the mechanisms through which this is going to be done. For the U.S. to have such a say over Iraqi oil, Iraq would have to be a COLONY! quote:By the way, if you are really interested in the subject of Oil and Iraqi war-no-war, I would recommend you doing some research into the Iraqi-French and Iraqi-Russian deals. I know the Russians were kicked out recently - or was that in Iran? At any rate, what should I look into, and why? What does it have to do with the way Blair is clueless and the "Team" eventually buys into his ideas because Afghanistan is over with? quote:About the region… It is everybody’s hope and wish that this war is not only going not to cause a chain reaction, but to the contrary it is going to promote long-waited stability. The segmentation of the Middle Eastern geopolitics and geoeconomy is the direct lose of the people of the region – this is the worst region in the history of mankind with the worst hatred and problems. Do you think that all this region is missing now is weapons of mass distraction?No, I do not think WMD is the worst thing that has happened in the Middle East. The worst thing that has happened in the Middle East and Africa has been colonization, drawing of borders with unwise or perhaps sinister designs by entities other than the people that live there, with the U.S. only making matters worse by meddling every excuse it gets. quote:I don’t know what some retired general is talking about on TV. However, Iraqi people do need democracy to the extend that they can digest it. I would be surprised to think that this is such a bad thing to want. However, the US is not trying to establish democracy in a country where there is no culture for democracy. It is not the mission of US. The US concerned is the security of the US and the region. Otherwise, there are dozens of despots on despotic and totalitarian regimes in Africa and elsewhere. But none as weakened or with as much oil as Iraq. Compare that with Saudi Arabia, the breeding hole for Al Qaeda. The general's name is al Khazraji, and he is under house arrest in Denmark for suspected war crimes, the ones where Saddam used his weapons against his own civilians. quote:I don’t know who Gore Vidal is. Never have heard of him. What I know however, that there is an obnoxious leftism on the rise in the US and, especially in Europe. There is an obnoxious anti-Americanism, especially in Europe. I remember about 10 years ago I was out for a drink or two with some Swedish colleagues. They claimed they hated US. I asked why? Their response was very direct – “They are too rich, and we hate rich people.” More I look at Europe, and I travel to Europe. This is the conclusion I come to – at least some of the European countries. Regardless, he is well-read and more educated than the average Johnny who is nowadays having his kids made to pray in school thanks to the rise of rightism in the U.S. government, who has never heard of Ambassadore Glaspie, who blames the countries in the region for Saddam having become what he is (clueless, totally clueless), and who dismisses immigrants from the region as ingrates who come to the U.S. only for the money and who only know how to criticize and take and never give anything back, for criticizing these same U.S. policies we are talking about, not to mention that they probably think the U.S. after Israel is God's chosen land. These are a few of the things I see from newsgroups and the like that I have been following. And it is on these types that U.S. politicians count on to not have their crap interrupted. I prefer the European population anytime, anywhere. quote:Finally, I find very sorry that a person of your intelligence and character would resort to such expressions as “monkeys and apes” when expressing yourself on such serious issues as the world politics and peace and war are. I, for one, have much higher expectations from you.MJ, this is a forum, not the U.N. to give a briefing to, nor am I handing in a paper. Even if by some mistake in history I were to go in front of an audience to make a change (or at the very best express my own point of view), I would be caring less about monkeys and apes myself. I would be even recruiting friends to help me find the articles I had the genius of not saving somewhere. I would prepare my slides, formulate my thoughts in stages, bring statistics where applicable, draw conclusions from similar examples, etc. But, hey, what do I care, really, who thinks what of me because I make it no secret what I personally think of Bush and his loonies (not politics, peace, or war)? It subtracts nothing from what I have said. Does it betray strong disgust and bias against Bush? Certainly. But Bush is my scapegoat and the U.S. is not a one-man entity; there is a whole TEAM out there and I am certainly less than pleased with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Stormy, As disagreeable as I find your response and the very premise of your assumptions along with your emotions, I don't find it warranting the drainage of my energy on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 quote:Originally posted by MJ:I don’t know who Gore Vidal is. Never have heard of him. That says a lot. How can someone who has big gaps in basic general knowledge of Western culture feel able to pronounce on things about that culture with such certainty? quote:What I know however, that there is an obnoxious leftism on the rise in the US and, especially in Europe. There is an obnoxious anti-Americanism, especially in Europe. I remember about 10 years ago I was out for a drink or two with some Swedish colleagues. They claimed they hated US. I asked why? Their response was very direct – “They are too rich, and we hate rich people.” More I look at Europe, and I travel to Europe. This is the conclusion I come to – at least some of the European countries. So the protests of the millions of people that have been marching against American warmongering, plus the voices of the hundreds of elected politicians and the hundreds of religious leaders from the Pope downwards, can be cast aside thanks to your experience with some Swedes you talked to in a bar years ago! What a "road to Damascus" that event must have been for you - it seems to have shaped your entire outlook on the non-American world. MJ, you have seen a black sheep in a field, and immediately assumed that all sheep in the world are black, when all you should actually have assumed is that one half of one sheep in that particular field is black! quote:Finally, I find very sorry that a person of your intelligence and character would resort to such expressions as “monkeys and apes” when expressing yourself on such serious issues as the world politics and peace and war are. I, for one, have much higher expectations from you.Oh dear, you have started ending things with personal insults again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by bellthecat:That says a lot. How can someone who has big gaps in basic general knowledge of Western culture feel able to pronounce on things about that culture with such certainty? Wow! You got me, Steve. I do confess that my knowledge in general needs a lot of improvement. I love learning, however. quote:So the protests of the millions of people that have been marching against American warmongering, plus the voices of the hundreds of elected politicians and the hundreds of religious leaders from the Pope downwards, can be cast aside thanks to your experience with some Swedes you talked to in a bar years ago! What a "road to Damascus" that event must have been for you - it seems to have shaped your entire outlook on the non-American world. MJ, you have seen a black sheep in a field, and immediately assumed that all sheep in the world are black, when all you should actually have assumed is that one half of one sheep in that particular field is black! Those millions of people do not have the perception of the threat that Americans have. Additionally, those people have not ever been subjected to the experience that Americans have in the recent history. Moreover, if one day, these European people would find threatened, I can assure you that they would appeal to the American “warmongers,” much like in the case of Yugoslavia. Additionally, the marching “peacemakers” have to also give themselves an account on how they have made the war more of a reality by encouraging the tyrants of the world and providing them with leverages. In 1933, when Hitler came to power, no one on the earth, especially in Europe, raised the alarms. When Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia, among others, there was no peacemaker to come out and march on the streets to demand Hitler to abstain from violence. The burden of the liberation of the conquered countries was left to the “warmongers.” Among others, France surrendered immediately (by rightfully earning reputation of world’s fastest surrendering army). When Kosovars were being slaughtered by the Serbs, or when the Serbs were being slaughtered by the Croats, I don’t recall these peacemakers marching on the streets. At that time, when the threat was to Europe, they did not consider the Americans to be "warmongers," but due to their reluctance to spend the necessary funds, or potentially risk theor lives, it was left to the Americans. I can go on and on, however, as I have mentioned before, I really don’t want to drain my energy on this argument. I have to also note that my experience with the Swedes was brought for illustration purposes and it didn’t mean that I have made my inferences based on that example. I thought that this was also obvious. quote:Oh dear, you have started ending things with personal insults again. If it comes across as an insult, I am sorry – it has not been my intention. However, the crux of my statement (I thought obviously) was to express my disappointment with the material of a person, who I, otherwise, am of very high opinion, which I have expressed occasionally, including in my "last sentence" – as much as my opinion may not matter. Also, Steve, speaking of personal insults, you might try to accept that this subject may not be your "high horse..." No? [ February 24, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: MJ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by bellthecat: quote:That says a lot. How can someone who has big gaps in basic general knowledge of Western culture feel able to pronounce on things about that culture with such certainty? Wow! You got me, Steve. I do confess that my knowledge in general needs a lot of improvement. I love learning, however. ?What disturbed me about you confessed ignorance is that it never occured to you to do a simple internet search on Gore Vidal to find out who you had never heard of. If you had then you would have understood that he is a person of some importance. But no, it's a case of "I 'ain't heard of him, so he 'ain't worth knowing about". quote: quote:So the protests of the millions of people that have been marching against American warmongering, plus the voices of the hundreds of elected politicians and the hundreds of religious leaders from the Pope downwards, can be cast aside thanks to your experience with some Swedes you talked to in a bar years ago! What a "road to Damascus" that event must have been for you - it seems to have shaped your entire outlook on the non-American world. MJ, you have seen a black sheep in a field, and immediately assumed that all sheep in the world are black, when all you should actually have assumed is that one half of one sheep in that particular field is black! Those millions of people do not have the perception of the threat that Americans have. Additionally, those people have not ever been subjected to the experience that Americans have in the recent history. Moreover, if one day, these European people would find threatened, I can assure you that they would appeal to the American “warmongers,” much like in the case of Yugoslavia. Additionally, the marching “peacemakers” have to also give themselves an account on how they have made the war more of a reality by encouraging the tyrants of the world and providing them with leverages. In 1933, when Hitler came to power, no one on the earth, especially in Europe, raised the alarms. When Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia, among others, there was no peacemaker to come out and march on the streets to demand Hitler to abstain from violence. The burden of the liberation of the conquered countries was left to the “warmongers.” Among others, France surrendered immediately (by rightfully earning reputation of world’s fastest surrendering army). When Kosovars were being slaughtered by the Serbs, or when the Serbs were being slaughtered by the Croats, I don’t recall these peacemakers marching on the streets. At that time, when the threat was to Europe, they did not consider the Americans to be "warmongers," but due to their reluctance to spend the necessary funds, or potentially risk theor lives, it was left to the Americans. I can go on and on, however, as I have mentioned before, I really don’t want to drain my energy on this argument. I have to also note that my experience with the Swedes was brought for illustration purposes and it didn’t mean that I have made my inferences based on that example. I thought that this was also obvious.I don't know what it is that has switched you back onto "tub-thumping" mode. It's very disapointing and puzzling. You were very reasonable for a while, especially after Bush washed his hands of any Genocide recognition, lifted sanctions on Azerbaijan, and began grouping Armenians in with Iranians and Egyptians and the like. Americans are not converting (i.e. fooling) anyone anymore. Those days are over forever. There is no going back. We all know the Emperor has no clothes, and that the Emperor IS a monkey. And (to give you a history lesson) America did nothing about stopping Hitler until Germany declared war on America. America, then as now, only acted out of its own self-interest and cared nothing for any county but itself. quote:Oh dear, you have started ending things with personal insults again. If it comes across as an insult, I am sorry – it has not been my intention. However, the crux of my statement (I thought obviously) was to express my disappointment with the material of a person, who I, otherwise, am of very high opinion, which I have expressed occasionally, including in my "last sentence" – as much as my opinion may not matter. [/QB]It's my experience that people who go around talking a lot about intelligence (and common sense) generally think they have that quality in abundance, and (even if they don't state it) think those who they disagree with are seriously lacking in it. That is why I thought your words appeared to be an insult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Steve, I can address your hyperventilation/imsinuations sentence-by-sentence, but I really am not interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Gor Vidal is the living consiousness of America. At least that is the way he is perceived by his readers. I can write alot about him, but my initial intention was to post a joke. Damn it:) A British doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a brain out of one man, put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks." A German doctor says, "That's nothing, we can take a brain out of one person, put it in another and have him preparing for war in four weeks." The American doctor, not to be outdone, says, "You guys are way behind, we just took a man with no brain out of Texas, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work, and the other half preparing for war." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 quote:Originally posted by MJ:Steve, I can address your hyperventilation/imsinuations sentence-by-sentence, but I really am not interested.Or, as Cartman would say, "F**k you guys, I'm going home!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 quote:Originally posted by bellthecat: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Steve, I can address your hyperventilation/imsinuations sentence-by-sentence, but I really am not interested.Or, as Cartman would say, "F**k you guys, I'm going home!"I am sorry to observe your world shrinking from Starbucks to South Park. I had illusions that you where capable for more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted March 1, 2003 Report Share Posted March 1, 2003 MJ, May I ask what is it that made you change your mind about Iraq. (I am sorry if my memory is deceiving me) I remember you posting on this forum few times that you felt that the way that the US was treating Iraq(sanctions and all) was wrong. And I had gotten the impression that you felt sorry for Iraq and the position that we had put it in and that you would have liked it better to "just leave them alon" attitude. Am I wrong or have you changed your mind. And if you have changed your mind, would you mind sharing with us why you have. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted March 1, 2003 Report Share Posted March 1, 2003 Azat, I don’t think you are quite accurate. I recall talking about the no-fly zone. But I have not changed my mind that I can think of. I do think that the sanction are wrong. As the history shows, they have never yielded results – be it with Cuba, be it with Iran, or be it with the same Iraq. They even help to consolidate the power of the dictators, who become more successful in diverting the attention from internal enemies to external enemies. Meanwhile, the ordinary people suffer immensely. Other than this, I don’t recall what you are referring to. However, I can admit that after 9/11, I have experienced hardening of my position. BUt it is a relative issue. Hope it explains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 MJ, you are 100% correct. You had mentioned that you were gains the sanctions and nothing else. I did remember that when I read you last message. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted March 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 AHAHAHAHA, these are just horrific! http://winstars.free.fr/english/bush.html I had seen the first one, but the second is new to me: http://winstars.free.fr/english/images/bus...b_lg_qual60.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.