On the way to Iraq we should hit Chriac's house

[Blake Reas]

This guy is ridicoulous, I mean who is he for? To me it seems he is kissing Sadaam's but because they have made deals with each other recently! Chirac and Schroeder are also our enemies. Whoever does not want Sadaam out of Office is sick in the head!

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I don't think we should really bomb him!;)

[GrayPilgrim]

Blake Reas:
P.S. I don't think we should really bomb him!;)

Why not? I think Otto von Bismark would have done us all a favor in 1870 if they had just kept on going! :fight: [But then again I always have liked Germany]. Don't get me wrong Schroeder is just as much a dimwit. THe only reason he is against the USA is that its the only way to keep this unpopular Kanzler in office.

GP

[Alden]

GrayPilgrim:


Why not? I think Otto von Bismark would have done us all a favor in 1870 if they had just kept on going! :fight: [But then again I always have liked Germany]. Don't get me wrong Schroeder is just as much a dimwit. THe only reason he is against the USA is that its the only way to keep this unpopular Kanzler in office.

GP

:thumb: Maybe Bismark should have kept going!:rofl: It's a pity that the world doesn't have more leaders with the intelligence and analytical skills of people like Bismark and Churchill. I may not have always agreed with all of Bismark and Churchill's aims, but people like Schroeder and that nearly-elected nationalist moron Le Pen don't even hold a candle.

[Socrates]

Blake Reas:
This guy is ridiculous, I mean who is he for? To me it seems he is kissing Sadaam's but because they have made deals with each other recently! Chirac and Schroeder are also our enemies. Whoever does not want Sadaam out of Office is sick in the head!

I agree, and Australia supports the USA. But there is a joke going around here that makes a good point:

John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia): Mr President, what actual evidence do you have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Dubya: We have the receipts!

[kiwimac]

Hmmm,

You do , of course, realise that both France and Germany have nukes??

I'll tell you who Chirac / Le Pen and Shroeder are, they are the freely elected heads of foreign governments & it's just tough that the US can't bully them into toeing the party line isn't it?

Hopefully the EU will pull out of this sick attempt at revenge on the part of your President who, frankly, couldn't find his donkey with his hands!

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

kiwimac:
I'll tell you who Chirac / Le Pen and Shroeder are, they are the freely elected heads of foreign governmentsSo was Neville Chamberlain.

[GrayPilgrim]

kiwimac:
Hmmm,

You do , of course, realise that both France and Germany have nukes??


France I knew, but I was unaware that Germany had their own nukes. I was under the impression that in teh 80s the Germans wanted US militray bases closed that had nukes.

THey may be freely elected but so were the leaders of France and GB in the 30's (even before Neville "Piece of Paper" Chamberlin), who allowed Hitler to turn the Reichswehr (a joke of 100,000 old farts) into the Wehrmacht (Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS) and to amass such might that it took the full arsenals of the US, USSR, GB (Canada, India, Australia, other countries part of the Common Wealth)... to stop him. Look at that, a country the size of Oregan was able to hold off the world for six years, and htat was after only being in power 5 1/2 years! Sadam has been in power for closer to 30. 12 years since his last woopin' and all the while he has been doing nothing but plot his revenge and amassing dirty tricks, now we are supposed to respect the cries for appeasment from the French and the Germans! Boy talk of the abrogation of moral right!

Rememebr that when society ceases to beleive in absolutes, society becomes absolute and thus removes the ability for anyone to think outside of their society. There are times you do things because they are right, and the concsequences be DDW'ed!

GW is much smarter than you let on. So he can't fake tears or fake the other heirs of otehr politicians as well. He's obviously smart enough to get elecetd and so he not only found his donkey but kicked Gore's to the curb!

[Ryokan]

minor point: The Reichswar alternated out so that there was actuallly a decent # of Germans with military training, and the excellent German officer corp that smashed Poland and France, as well as the Soviets for a very long time, was the Reichswehr. They were the "bright" spot in military thought of the time, and developed the combined arms doctrine we see today.

[Blake Reas]

kiwimac:
Hmmm,

You do , of course, realise that both France and Germany have nukes??

I'll tell you who Chirac / Le Pen and Shroeder are, they are the freely elected heads of foreign governments & it's just tough that the US can't bully them into toeing the party line isn't it?

Hopefully the EU will pull out of this sick attempt at revenge on the part of your President who, frankly, couldn't find his donkey with his hands!

Kiwimac

Yeah they have nukes and we have plenty more. The fact is that Hussein needs to be taken out of office and we are going to do it whether people in Little New Zealand like it or not or whereever else. You folks will have to get over it. We are the only ones fighting for Justice.

In Christ,
Blake

[kiwimac]

Deary Me, the Testosterone level is almost as high as the stupidity!

Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, he has no tie to Al-Qaeda, he was not involved in the Sept 11th incident.

Ah ... but he does have oil....

Let me quote from Major-General Smedley Butler, USMC




Major-General Smedley Butler on Interventionism

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns six per cent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 per cent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again, as I have done, to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for: one is the defence of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss": supernationalistic capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had--as the boys in the back room would say--a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

(Source: Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major-General Smedley Butler, USMC.)


The more times change the more things stay the same

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

Kiwimac shows his insular mentality:
Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, he has no tie to Al-Qaeda, he was not involved in the Sept 11th incident. Ah ... but he does have oil....
I wonder how Kiwimac can prove such negatives ... I do find it ironic that some arguments against invading Iraq are "Saddam might use chemical or biological weapons". Oh, but I thought he had none to use. :huh:

Humph, Sodom Hussein has thumbed his nose at the UN long enough, but they let him get away with it. And that virago Helen Clark (New Zealand's Prime Minister, for the benefit of our Northen Hemisphere friends) has too much faith in that organisation full of corrupt murderous dictatorships.

Oh yes, NZ and the UN support sanctions, but they hurt the people far more than what would have happened if Bush Sr. had finished the job the first time round!

And I will repeat -- the US should consider its role in creating the monster Saddam in the first place, and refuse to help despots as it has done so often in the past.

Oh, and do you really oppose all war, even that against Hitler? There probably wouldn't be any Jews alive, and you'd be speaking Japanese, buddy.

[Captain Ochre]

kiwimac:
Deary Me, the Testosterone level is almost as high as the stupidity!

Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, he has no tie to Al-Qaeda, he was not involved in the Sept 11th incident.

Ah ... but he does have oil....

Let me quote from Major-General Smedley Butler, USMC




The more times change the more things stay the same

Kiwimac

The circumstantial evidence that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction appears clear, kiwimac. Why a warhead designed for chemical cargo if the Iraqis have no chemical to put inside? Why should Hussein blow off the United Nations and break the terms of surrender if he's Mister Innocent behind his poor attempt at a Groucho moustache? Why are Muslim neighbors so willing to see him go (not to mention his own people, who are murdered at his whim according to commonplace reports)?
No connection with al Quaida? When did you confirm this, or was it the special powers of argumentum ad ignoratiam that permit your claim?

Is the Butler quotation really supposed to be relevant when Butler wrote before jet airplanes, intercontinental missiles, suitcase bombs, and genetically tailored germ warfare? Let alone commonplace international travel? I would hope that Butler would take at least 5 minutes to reconsider his words if he were aware of those things, and of a willingness to use them on the part of an enemy.

[Alden]

I'll tell you who Chirac / Le Pen and Shroeder are, they are the freely elected heads of foreign governments & it's just tough that the US can't bully them into toeing the party line isn't it?


WE were joking:argh:

And Le Pen was not elected

[Alden]

Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction

What is Serin gas?

What is Ricin?

What is Anthrax?

What is Mustard gas?

[kiwimac]

Alden:


What is Serin gas?

What is Ricin?

What is Anthrax?

What is Mustard gas?

Wow!, You have managed to find something that the Weapon's Inspectors have missed, WELL DONE! Tell us all please, where were they hidden? How were they stored ? and how did they drop your team into Baghdad.

As for Helen Clark, Socrates, envy does not become you. Ms. Clark is a highly-intelligent woman, unlike the BUSH-LITE in Canberra who, if he wagged his tail any harder when GW patted him would have his behind fall off!

Further your comment
Oh, and do you really oppose all war, even that against Hitler? There probably wouldn't be any Jews alive, and you'd be speaking Japanese, buddy. is a simple strawman as I had never mentioned WW2.

However, now that you've mentioned it, during WW2, every time non-violent confrontation was used against Nazi Germany it worked! (I can provide the references if you would like!)


As for the chemical warheads, Capt. Ochre. NZ has a Radiation testing laboratory which produces uranium, does that mean we have a nuclear weapons program? Buried in a number of land-fills around this country are old war-heads for artillery pieces, designed to carry, among other things, Mustard Gas (WW1 you know) does that mean that we have WMDs?

It's not whether Hussein HAS the war-heads its whether he has the infrastructure which would enable the production of WMDs and he does not. Moreover, according to at least two former chief weapons inspectors, he cannot because security agencies worldwide are specifically looking for any sign of the kinds of purchases of equipment that you would need to make 'em.

Nope, let's be clear here, this is about America being a bully and about US hunger for oil. In this case Butler's quotation is indeed germane because it shows that the US has a history of putting its economic interests ahead of the rights of citizens of other countries to life, liberty and the pursuit of whatever happiness they can find..

Further, let me simply add, that a Christian would see quite clearly that wars solve NOTHING. Jesus told us to overcome hatred with love, to treat our enemy as we would be treated, to act out of a concern for the other's well-being, not to nuke 'em till they glow!

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

Kiwimac continued his anti-American left-wing crusade: :rant:


Wow!, You have managed to find something that the Weapon's Inspectors have missed, WELL DONE! Tell us all please, where were they hidden? How were they stored ? and how did they drop your team into Baghdad.So why does Sodom give the inspectors the runaround, and threaten with death any scientist who talks to them without one of his thugs as a minder?

As for Helen Clark, Socrates, envy does not become you. Ms. Clark is a highly-intelligent woman,You're welcome to this strident Christ-hating feminist, who only recently stopped looking and talking like a man.

unlike the BUSH-LITE in Canberra who, if he wagged his tail any harder when GW patted him would have his behind fall off! You mean, the one who was actually honest to his electorate and made it clear he would introduce a GST, unlike Clark's party who did it by stealth? Or the one who actually values the free world higher than all the pinkos in the Labour Party and the opinions of the despots who comprise most of the UN?

S:
Oh, and do you really oppose all war, even that against Hitler? There probably wouldn't be any Jews alive, and you'd be speaking Japanese, buddy.

K:
is a simple strawman as I had never mentioned WW2.

However, now that you've mentioned it, during WW2, every time non-violent confrontation was used against Nazi Germany it worked! (I can provide the references if you would like!)Not such a straw man after all, obviously. Chamberlain's refusal to stand firm against Hitler when he was weak resulted in Hitler walking all over him. And if Sodom had been finished off the first time, Iraqis would not have died in the UN sanctions, and nor would he have been able to massacre the Kurds.


Further, let me simply add, that a Christian would see quite clearly that wars solve NOTHING. Jesus told us to overcome hatred with love, to treat our enemy as we would be treated, to act out of a concern for the other's well-being, not to nuke 'em till they glow!Jesus was talking about individual[i]response to [i]insult, not the duties of a government. So He was saying nothing against just war or capital punishment. In fact, He commended a centurion for his "great faith" and not ONCE did He condemn him for being a soldier. Cornelius was the first Gentile Christian, and was a centurion in the Italian regiment. Likewise, while He was still a soldier, he was commended as a godly man. And when Peter preached the Gospel to Him, there wasn't the slightest hint that Cornelius should give up his military profession. Paul also said that the government does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13).

[kiwimac]

Socrates,

What makes you think Helen Clark is a:


...strident Christ-hating feminist, who only recently stopped looking and talking like a man. "

Chapter & verse from Helen please showing me that she is a " Christ-Hating feminist" Or is it simply that the mere thought of a woman in a leadership position offends you, dear boy?

As for John Howard, If the little man weren't such an idiot he'd be laughable!

As for the old saw about Jesus commands being individual matters rather than commands for government. You & I know that its a crock! Indeed the church from the 1st century until the 4th century actively either excommunicated any member who was a soldier or prevented such from joining in the first place!

(Once again happy to provide sources)

As for me being a pinko ..... oh dear! how sad! insults from out of the twilight zone of the Australian Right-Wing. Listen, Sunshine, my old man was a card carrying member of the NZ Fascist union, don't you presume to judge my politics.

As for being anti-American, I am not what I am is opposed to is a war solely for the purposes of lining the pockets of those already wealthy off the backs of the third-world and so some well-off individual can continue to drive his SUV / Cadillac / Rolls.

I seriously think you need some kind of eye operation in order to see what is in front of you unblinkered by your unreasoning support for the US.

Kiwimac

[Alden]

kiwimac:


Wow!, You have managed to find something that the Weapon's Inspectors have missed, WELL DONE! Tell us all please, where were they hidden? How were they stored ? and how did they drop your team into Baghdad.



Wow!, maybe somebody hasn't done their homework! WELL DONE!:thumb:

March 21, 1995 - Nerve Agent Sarin Identified as Chemical Weapon Used by Iraq Against Kurdish Population

April 29, 1993 - Nerve Gas Used in Northern Iraq on Kurds

August 4, 1989, JAMA article - "The Use of Chemical Weapons: Conducting an Investigation Using Survey Epidemiology"

October 22, 1988 - Medical Team Finds Evidence of Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons on Kurds

If you'd like the source, let me know.

I repeat my earlier question: What is Sarin gas?

[Socrates]

KatipoMac wrote:
Socrates,

What makes you think Helen Clark is a:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...strident Christ-hating feminist, who only recently stopped looking and talking like a man. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter & verse from Helen please showing me that she is a " Christ-Hating feminist"Where do I begin? Lesse, living in sin and marrying the bloke only because it was politically expedient, a consistent pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality voting record, and her impersonation of a man in both appearance and voice. And this question coming from someone who gullibly swallows everything the papers say about the leader of the Christian Heritage Party?

Or is it simply that the mere thought of a woman in a leadership position offends you, dear boy?Yeah, right :duh:, as if I had any problem with Queen Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher or Benazir Bhutto.


As for John Howard, If the little man weren't such an idiot he'd be laughable!Oh, please explain more. Hopefully you'll come up with something more substantial than his height. Maybe you could explain why NZ's population hemorrhages at a rate of about 1% a year, most of them coming to live under Howard instead of Clark. :bonk:

As for the old saw about Jesus commands being individual matters rather than commands for government. You & I know that its a crock!One day you might surprise our Northern Hemisphere friends and come up with a rational argument. So far, the two Katipos on this site have not distinguished themselves except by their crassness.

Let's spell it out for KiwiChamberlain:


First of all the 4th Commandment is ‘Do not murder’ (Hebrew ratsach is used today to mean murder, and has the basic meaning of lying in wait in the manner of a predatory animal). If it really meant ‘kill’ as per the KJV mistranslation, then the Bible contradicts itself in the very same book, because God clearly commanded capital punishment and just war.
Romans 13 said ‘the government does not bear the sword in vain’ which gave the government the right to execute wrongdoers, and commanded obedience of the people to their leaders. The only time we should disobey the government is if it makes a law contrary to God’s (Acts 5:29), so this would cover the objection about obeying Hitler’s command to kill Jews. But Bush protecting his people and bringing the terrorists to justice is not against God’s law, so it is right for a Christian to enlist in this war. I don’t give the slightest credence to KiwiChamberlain's conspiratorial rantings.
The passages you allude to are commands against personal vengeance, and you have yet to address this. Therefore they have no bearing whatever on the above duty of a governent to mete out justice.
Passages on soldiers: Some soldiers came to John the Baptist asking what they should do, and he did not tell them to resign from the army (Luke 3:14). Neither was Cornelius ever condemned for being a soldier; rather he was praised for his godliness even while he was in the army. Jesus praised a centurion for having more faith than all of Israel (Matthew 8:10). Paul talks about the Christian as a soldier of Christ (2 Timothy 2:3), and found many favorable qualities about soldiers he told Christians to emulate. These passages are enough to refute the fallacy that the Bible prohibits war and armies at all cost.



Indeed the church from the 1st century until the 4th century actively either excommunicated any member who was a soldier or prevented such from joining in the first place!

(Once again happy to provide sources)Even if you were right, which I doubt, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a monkey's. What matters is what Jesus and His chosen Apostles thought.

As for me being a pinko ..... oh dear! how sad! insults from out of the twilight zone of the Australian Right-Wing. Listen, Sunshine, my old man was a card carrying member of the NZ Fascist union, don't you presume to judge my politics.So whaddya want -- me to judge you by your father's failings? You didn't actually refute the charge either.


As for being anti-American, I am not what I am is opposed to is a war solely for the purposes of lining the pockets of those already wealthy off the backs of the third-world and so some well-off individual can continue to drive his SUV / Cadillac / Rolls.I.e. you're an amaurotic yankophobe who can't see that terrorists must be stopped. KiwiChamberlain would probably also have opposed the Americans joining in against Hitler, claiming it was also some vast capitalist conspiracy.

I seriously think you need some kind of eye operation in order to see what is in front of you unblinkered by your unreasoning support for the US.Coming from someone who evidently cannot read.:argh: For goodness’s sake, I told this joke:
John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia): Mr President, what actual evidence do you have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Dubya: We have the receipts!And I also said:
And I will repeat -- the US should consider its role in creating the monster Saddam in the first place, and refuse to help despots as it has done so often in the past.

[Ryokan]

Kiwimac how would an expensive war that will probably damage our already weak economy, require us to rebuild Iraq, and probably not give us greater access to oil in the long run, help our economy or line our pockets?
And how does this relate to us "getting wealthy of the third world"?
And as far as getting wealthy off the third world, it was american investment that has helped taiwan, singapore, south korea, and japan move into the first world, and the dramactic improvements in quality of life in India, indonesia, and thailand during the past twenty years are largely related to opening investment. Globalization usuallly helps the third world. I am not saying that we do it out of the kindness of our hearts, but it gets done.
And its easy to judge our wars from New Zealand, where there is a huge terrorist threat.:noid:

[Ryokan]

And for any australians around, most americans who follow these things (probably only half :() are thankful for your support

[dawnghost]

Blake Reas:
You folks will have to get over it. We are the only ones fighting for Justice.

:eek:

oh my God. I know I am a newcomer here, but I really can't believe I am reading this! I mean, please don't take anything that I may say as an offense really, and correct me if I am wrong ok?

let me try to summarize my point of view before I try to explain it: I do not believe the USA is fighting for Justice.

alright that may have sounded a little harsh, but let me explain.

I think you people are looking at this problem from the wrong perspective. it's not like just because the USA is the richest and most powerful nation in the world it will attract hatred from all sides.

but actually, you should ask yourselves what is causing this in the first place. I mean, do you really consider the WTC attack to be just an act of evil terrorism and nothing more?? good Lord, you should be trying to HELP the other countries, the more you have power, the more you have responsabilities too!

that 'self-righteous' attitude will serve you nothing, brothers. here in Brazil, there are people starving to death and our ability to grow is seriously influenced by US's decisions! we have to pay a huge sum of money to you because of past debts that, if you look through our history, would already be paid for, thrice or more! I mean, it's a question of sensibility to your fellow man. but US won't help us in some subjects because there will be no profit out of it whatsoever! do you call this 'christian'??

I agree with you that there are laws, and that there are just wars. ok. but really, if you're considering the lex taliones here, then it's not like the US has to retaliate now, because you 'enemies' were the ones retaliating first!

look, I am against terrorism, against Saddam and against Bin Laden too. but this war will NOT solve your problems, brothers! it will just make them worse in time!

you should be reading the recent events through different glasses. I am sorry, but I do not agree with USA's decisions so far. so much for blindly striking back.



by the way, I am NOT a communist hehehehehe

[Ryokan]

well, dawnghost, it is like this. We aren't fighting for justice, we are fighting, justly, to protect ourselves from the threats terrorists and rogue states pose us. It may be that these threats are partially our fault. But we can't change the past. So we have to deal with the now.
Secondly, the US does fulfill much of its responsibility to the world, more than other comparably powerful nations.
And on to Brazil. You lecture the US about its policies, how about this:
Brazil is an economic nutcase. Corruption, poor governance, protectionistic and socialist economic practice, and little in the way of strict formal property rights (a situation that allows those huge shanty towns around beautiful Rio where you live to exist, and makes them impossible to develope) has lead to the massive debt you suffer from. You have noone to blame but yourselves for that. I agree, the US should let you guys off the hook. But not because we have to, or are obligate to, or are some how responsible for the bad and dumb choices Brazil has made. But rather because we are that big, and magnanomous, and because its not fair to the young of Brazil.

[Socrates]

DawnGhost:
I mean, do you really consider the WTC attack to be just an act of evil terrorism and nothing more??Yes. This was an act of mass murder, and the USA has a perfect right to bring its perpetrators to justice, and my country (Australia) supports the USA.


good Lord, you should be trying to HELP the other countries, the more you have power, the more you have responsabilities too!Yes, and it would help other countries if Osama Bin Laden and Sodom Hussein were obliterated.


I agree with you that there are laws, and that there are just wars. ok. but really, if you're considering the lex taliones here, then it's not like the US has to retaliate now, because you 'enemies' were the ones retaliating first! Not serious, surely. The USA helped the Taliban throw out the Russians. And you talk about money -- Osama is worth hundreds of millions. With that amount, he could have built mansions for every Palestinian. But no, he doesn't really care about them, but just uses them in his fanatical anti-Israel crusade. And he hates the USA because they are not going to allow its enemies to push them into the Mediterranean, their intention since 1948.

[dawnghost]

Dear Socrates,

I will reply to Ryokan, but please read it as though I was replying to you as well. I am not trying to discuss this war here. even though I agree that the USA has a big problem in its hands now, and has to deal with it, I ask you to understand that this kind of thing doesn't come out of the blue. there has been motives for it to happen, so don't just support it unconditionally.


Ryokan:
well, dawnghost, it is like this. We aren't fighting for justice, we are fighting, justly, to protect ourselves from the threats terrorists and rogue states pose us. It may be that these threats are partially our fault. But we can't change the past. So we have to deal with the now.
you can't change the past, but we can always change the future, remember this always. if these threats are partially your fault, it's time to make them not your fault at all in the future. I respect your honesty on this subject very much, that you are now fighting to protect yourselves from something you may have helped to grow. I don't condemn you for protecting yourselves, if you just use this experience now to grow from it, to avoid bringing this upon yourselves in the future.


Ryokan:
And on to Brazil. You lecture the US about its policies, how about this: Brazil is an economic nutcase. Corruption, poor governance, protectionistic and socialist economic practice, and little in the way of strict formal property rights (a situation that allows those huge shanty towns around beautiful Rio where you live to exist, and makes them impossible to develope) has lead to the massive debt you suffer from. You have noone to blame but yourselves for that.
I agree with EVERYTHING you have said here. to tell you the truth, I am very ashamed of my country most of the time, and you wouldn't really consider myself to be a patriot, but I'll always do my best to help my community and those around me. it's not like I said it's ALL your country's fault, if you had this impression, then I am sorry. I only said that you should help us as well as other countries in need. that would be "good". :smile:


Ryokan: I agree, the US should let you guys off the hook. But not because we have to, or are obligate to, or are some how responsible for the bad and dumb choices Brazil has made. But rather because we are that big, and magnanomous, and because its not fair to the young of Brazil.
I agree with you 100%. :thumb:

[Ryokan]

I appreciate you weren't blaming us for everything, dawnghost. I was annoyed at the time, and took it out on you.
I too hope that we learn from the past, and stop subsidizing bloody dictators just because it is convienent. I also hope that we can find a way to give aid that helps rather than hurts the third world, which is something we haven't accomplished yet.
But we still have to defend ourselves now.

[Socrates]

Well the last time they listened to a 'Talking Bush' they ended up in the desert for 40 years!!

[GrayPilgrim]

02-20-2003 @ 10:14 PM
Socrates:

Well the last time they listened to a 'Talking Bush' they ended up in the desert for 40 years!!

Also if they joined in it would destroy any Arab nation participation in a coalition. However, the thing to fear is a biological weapon going off in Israel, that will lead to a nuclear retaliation, IMHO, just as Adolf Eichman is the only man ever to receive the death penalty in an Israeli Court so would be the swift retaliation for such an attack. The Shoah still is a strong political force in Israel.

GP

[GrayPilgrim]

Moreover, The Israeli destruction of the Iraqi French built nuclear plant in 1980 (or was it '81) is the only thing that has prevented the Iraqis from having Nukes to date. So they have served the world well with that strike.

[Socrates]

GrayPilgrim:
Moreover, The Israeli destruction of the Iraqi French built nuclear plant in 1980 (or was it '81) is the only thing that has prevented the Iraqis from having Nukes to date. So they have served the world well with that strike.Right you are there!:thumb: But I recall the UN and assorted loony lefties condemned Israeli "aggression" at the time. :argh: :doh:

And it was 1981. One of eight F-16 pilots who performed this deed for which everyone should be profoundly grateful was Ilan Ramon, who was just killed in the Challenger tragedy. :bawl:

[Blake Reas]

02-16-2003 @ 08:09 PM
dawnghost:



:eek:

oh my God. I know I am a newcomer here, but I really can't believe I am reading this! I mean, please don't take anything that I may say as an offense really, and correct me if I am wrong ok?

let me try to summarize my point of view before I try to explain it: I do not believe the USA is fighting for Justice.

alright that may have sounded a little harsh, but let me explain.

I think you people are looking at this problem from the wrong perspective. it's not like just because the USA is the richest and most powerful nation in the world it will attract hatred from all sides.

but actually, you should ask yourselves what is causing this in the first place. I mean, do you really consider the WTC attack to be just an act of evil terrorism and nothing more?? good Lord, you should be trying to HELP the other countries, the more you have power, the more you have responsabilities too!

that 'self-righteous' attitude will serve you nothing, brothers. here in Brazil, there are people starving to death and our ability to grow is seriously influenced by US's decisions! we have to pay a huge sum of money to you because of past debts that, if you look through our history, would already be paid for, thrice or more! I mean, it's a question of sensibility to your fellow man. but US won't help us in some subjects because there will be no profit out of it whatsoever! do you call this 'christian'??

I agree with you that there are laws, and that there are just wars. ok. but really, if you're considering the lex taliones here, then it's not like the US has to retaliate now, because you 'enemies' were the ones retaliating first!

look, I am against terrorism, against Saddam and against Bin Laden too. but this war will NOT solve your problems, brothers! it will just make them worse in time!

you should be reading the recent events through different glasses. I am sorry, but I do not agree with USA's decisions so far. so much for blindly striking back.



by the way, I am NOT a communist hehehehehe


No matter how bad this hurts me to say it I am going to anyway. You are dead wrong, I am looking at it from the perspective taht there is going to be a lot more problems if we let Hussein live also I think we are totally just for going in and ending this guy. He kills the Kurdish peopel for no reason what so ever. I guess they do not brodcast in Brazil, NZ, etc. about Hussein torturing and gassing his own people. We need to go in there and take him out before he gets a hold of some plutonium and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people!
And to your thing about people starving, America helps people, although maybe not enough. The sad thing is it should be the CHURCH's job to take up that responsibility. It is not America's job to feed everyone on the face of the planet, it won't happen only the Church could do that by God's Sovereign Grace and Mercy.

In Christ,
Blake

[ItalianGold]

Well the last time they listened to a 'Talking Bush' they ended up in the desert for 40 years!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[kiwimac]

02-21-2003 @ 07:58 PM
Blake Reas:




No matter how bad this hurts me to say it I am going to anyway. You are dead wrong, I am looking at it from the perspective taht there is going to be a lot more problems if we let Hussein live also I think we are totally just for going in and ending this guy. He kills the Kurdish peopel for no reason what so ever. I guess they do not brodcast in Brazil, NZ, etc. about Hussein torturing and gassing his own people. We need to go in there and take him out before he gets a hold of some plutonium and wipes out hundreds of thousands of people!
And to your thing about people starving, America helps people, although maybe not enough. The sad thing is it should be the CHURCH's job to take up that responsibility. It is not America's job to feed everyone on the face of the planet, it won't happen only the Church could do that by God's Sovereign Grace and Mercy.

In Christ,
Blake

Blake,

See the following from the NY Times. Hussein did not deliberately gas the Kurds.


January 31, 2003
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE


ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds.

On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses.

But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

More US propaganda bites the dust!

Kiwimac

[Solly]

Thanks Kiwi

[Ryokan]

The whole Iraq gasing the Kurds story is very interesting. The Reagan admin, of course, accused Iran. Now Bush blames Iraq. Opponents screamed that they were lying. Both are shameless propaganda. What actually happened? There is no way of knowing.

But, does it really matter?

[Captain Ochre]

Try some Eurasian US propaganda.
:wink:


Although Turkish Kurds filled the pages of Western newspapers, the atrocities against Kurds were much worse in Iran and in Iraq - two countries that both have traditionally been Moscow’s allies. Most people did not even notice the news about Iraqi massacres against Kurds in the 1980s, except maybe the use of chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabya in 1988 - though it was not the first time. Within the same year, Iraq massacred 50’000-250’000 Kurds in the so-called Anfal attack! (Leitzinger 1999, 31-32; Kurdistan rapport 22/1996.)
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/issue2/iraqkurd.htm

This from Human Rights Watch:


Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, July 1993
A narrative account of the Iraqi government's organized attempt to eradicate the Kurds living in northern Iraq, this report captures in riveting detail the multiple phases of the Anfal campaign. Over almost two years, Human Rights Watch analyzed tons of captured Iraqi government documents and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the 1988 campaign. As a result of this painstaking work, we conclude that the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/race/bibl-mena.htm

And, finally, some British US propaganda.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021004/2002100436.html

[Alden]

BOSTON, MA (April 29, 1993) - For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.

The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.

Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.

"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW. "They also send a clear signal that chemical weapons attacks cannot be launched in the belief that the natural elements will quickly cover up the evidence."

According to scientists at Porton Down, the discovery marks "the first time that we have found evidence in soil samples of traces of the degradation products of nerve agent." In addition to degradation products of nerve agents, the samples also yielded significant amounts of the degradation products of mustard gas.

Alastair Hay, a consultant to PHR and Senior Lecturer in Chemical Pathology at the University of Leeds, said, "This discovery not only confirms eyewitness accounts and medical examinations of Kurdish people that nerve gas as well as mustard gas were used against them, but it also has enormous implications for the effectiveness of the chemical weapons treaty." While inspection teams from the United Nations Special Commission have found both mustard and nerve agents stored in Iraq, as well as munitions containing them, the samples from Birjinni show they were actually used, Hay said.

In addition to confirming reports of a gas attack on Birjinni, the findings "indicate that samples collected from appropriate locations can provide evidence of the presence of chemical warfare agents over four years after the attack," according to Dr. Graham Pearson, Director General and Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. "This should contribute to the deterrent effect against nations contemplating the use of chemical weapons." So far, the Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by 145 countries and is now awaiting ratification before entering into force.

In August 1988, shortly after the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq war, the government of Saddam Hussein launched a major military offensive against the Kurds in northern Iraq, sending tens of thousand of refugees who either witnessed or showed physical symptoms of chemical weapons attacks. The PHR team concluded that bombs containing mustard gas and at least one unidentified nerve agent had been dropped on Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.

According to MEW, the Birjinni attack was one of dozens of chemical weapons attacks launched against the Kurds in 1988. "These chemical weapons attacks were part of a genocidal campaign carried out against Kurdish civilians," said Kenneth Anderson, director of the Arms Project of Human Rights Watch and a member of the PHR/MEW forensic team that visited Iraqi Kurdistan in June 1992.

At least four people were killed during the attack on Birjinni, two in an orchard and two brothers in a cave where they sought refuge. The remaining villagers fled. Refugees reported that Iraqi soldiers visited the village days later and buried the two victims found in the orchard an, elderly man and a young boy.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kiwimac-

I posted something to this effect earlier, but perhaps you have chosen to ignore it. So here is the majority of the article.


See the following from the NY Times. Hussein did not deliberately gas the Kurds.

Perhaps not in the instance that the Times was referring to. Either that or the Kurds have suffered hallucinations of Iraqi bombers combined with a major case of hypochondria causing them to have blistered skin, shortness of breath, and a nasty puking fit.

This is from the Physicians for Human Rights site. Care to call this propaganda?

[Socrates]

Back to the original thread, another good reason is Chirac's warm handshake and fêting of the Zimbabwean tyrant and racist Mugabe just now. Germany and France have rightly been called "The Axis of Weasel", and unfortunately KatipoMac's country has joined them. David Letterman joked that the last time the French demanded further proof, it thundered into Paris with a Nazi flag.

[Socrates]

Yasser Arafat and Osama Bin Laden are having
a conversation. Osama is venting his frustrations
to Yasser, "Just look at us! We are both doing
the same thing. We use the same training camps
for our soldiers. We are both using explosives
and other terrorist actions. We are both targeting
civilians. We both use civilians as human shields
for our troupes. But *you* won the Nobel Peace
Prize, and I am on the FBI's Most Wanted List!
I don't understand it!"

Yasser Arafat smirks and says, "Oh, that's
easy to explain. I kill only Jews."

*************************

A Texan, a Frenchman and an Israeli are on a
plane flying over the Pacific Ocean when the
engines stop functioning. The plane crash lands
on a Pacific Island and the 3 are immediately
captured by a tribe of cannibals and taken to
their village.

The Chief tells the 3 captives that these
cannibals are civilized and they have a custom
on their island that before they eat anyone, they
grant that person his or her last wishes, no
matter what they are.

He asks the Texan, "What is your last wish?"
The Texan replies: "I want a 2 inch thick steak
with all the trimmings, Cajun fries and a case of
Bud." The Chief motions to some of his tribesmen
who immediately run into the jungle and come
back with the steak, the fries and the beer. The
Texan eats his meal and he is thrown in the pot.

The Frenchman is asked: "What is your last wish?"
He replies: "I'd like a case of Don Perignon and I'd
also like a big plate of escargot cooked in the
French manner." The Chief motions to his tribesmen
who immediately rush off into the jungle and bring
back everything the Frenchman asked for. He eats
and drinks his fill, and he is then thrown in the pot.

The Chief turns to the Israeli and asks, "And what is
your wish?" The Israeli looks the Chief squarely in
the eyes and replies: "I want you to kick me in the
behind as hard as you can." The Chief is bewildered
and asks the Israeli again, only to receive the same
reply. "I want you to kick me in the behind as hard
as you can."

The Chief shrugs his shoulders, asks the Israeli to
turn around, and kicks him as hard as he can. With
that the Israeli pulls out a gun and kills the Chief
and all of the other cannibals.

The Texan and the Frenchman get out of the pot,
look at the Israeli and say: "If you had that gun,
why didn't you do anything sooner?"

The Israeli replies: "What? And risk being
condemned by the UN, EU and the State
Department for 'overreacting' to insufficient
provocation?"

*************************

Sharon and Arafat finally agreed to negotiate. But Sharon requested that they should follow Jewish tradition by starting off with a story, and Arafat grudgingly agreed.

Sharon:
"Once, while the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses took a swim in an oasis. But when he got out of the water, he found his clothes missing. He demanded to know what had happened, and the rest of the children of Israel said,
'That's obvious --- the Palestinians stole them.'"

At that point Arafat furiously interupted and said:
"Just wait a minute here -- there were no Palestinians there at that time!".

Sharon responded:
"Right, now that we've got that settled, what would you like to talk about?"

[GrayPilgrim]

02-22-2003 @ 11:26 AM
Socrates:

Sharon and Arafat finally agreed to negotiate. But Sharon requested that they should follow Jewish tradition by starting off with a story, and Arafat grudgingly agreed.

Sharon:
"Once, while the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses took a swim in an oasis. But when he got out of the water, he found his clothes missing. He demanded to know what had happened, and the rest of the children of Israel said,
'That's obvious --- the Palestinians stole them.'"

At that point Arafat furiously interupted and said:
"Just wait a minute here -- there were no Palestinians there at that time!".

Sharon responded:
"Right, now that we've got that settled, what would you like to talk about?" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[brother vinny]

:bump: