| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its
67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Bzzzt. Bushco lied about WMDs that he new didn't exist. Oz had nothing to do
with it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Capt. JG wrote: Bzzzt. Bushco lied about WMDs that he new didn't exist. Oz had nothing to do with it. Our President was acting on bad intell, he did not lie. You can not tell a lie unless you know you are not telling the truth. The WMD were smuggled in Syria Geeze if countries like OZ spent the 290 million they took in bribes from Saddam and used that money for intell into WMD then perhaps the truth would have been discovered sooner. BTW IMO WMD had nothing to do with the justification of taking out Saddam Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Our president lied over and over to both the public and to Congress. His
minions fabricated intel and passed it off as fact. Bushco decided that Iraq had to go, and they used every bit of flimsy evidence they could find to justify the war and then they went on to subvert our way of life, not to mention destroying tens of thousand of US soldiers and their family's lives. Unfortunately, your opinion about why we invaded a country that didn't attack us nor posed a real threat to us wasn't what drove US policy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Capt. JG wrote: Bzzzt. Bushco lied about WMDs that he new didn't exist. Oz had nothing to do with it. Our President was acting on bad intell, he did not lie. You can not tell a lie unless you know you are not telling the truth. The WMD were smuggled in Syria Geeze if countries like OZ spent the 290 million they took in bribes from Saddam and used that money for intell into WMD then perhaps the truth would have been discovered sooner. BTW IMO WMD had nothing to do with the justification of taking out Saddam Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe The UN really has no jurisdiction anywhere. They're a bunch of showboating pansies. Sending grain to Iraq? Those guys going to jail? hahahaha! What about the French that sold him parts to build nukuler bombs? Let's round up those that sold Iraq band aids and baby formula too! Todd |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Blind loyalty to bad leadership is not patriotism.
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ http://www.sundayherald.com/news/int..._president.php Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President By Neil Mackay A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. The PNAC report also: l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership'; l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'; l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has'; l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China'; l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US; l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'; l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.' You should do a search for "Bush + Aranco", "Cheney + Aranco", "Barbara Administration + Aramco". You'd be surprised. MMC "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Capt. JG wrote: Bzzzt. Bushco lied about WMDs that he new didn't exist. Oz had nothing to do with it. Our President was acting on bad intell, he did not lie. You can not tell a lie unless you know you are not telling the truth. The WMD were smuggled in Syria Geeze if countries like OZ spent the 290 million they took in bribes from Saddam and used that money for intell into WMD then perhaps the truth would have been discovered sooner. BTW IMO WMD had nothing to do with the justification of taking out Saddam Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
MMC encourages the following, as all should: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President US global domination 'regime change' 'global Pax Americana' a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, 'American grand strategy' the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'; the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace. US may consider developing biological weapons 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'; North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. Wow all great ideal MMC thanks for the tips. The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda the cost of non-intervention was to high with Saddam The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican. 1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar- ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the people of Iraq, 2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, 3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling regime (Marsh Arabs), 4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous opulence as his people suffered, 5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc- tion, 6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist entities, 7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec- tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruc- tion, 8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament as a game, rather than as a goal), 9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder- er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life, 10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of Kuwait and Israel and Iran, 11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and, later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel- oping nuclear weapons), 12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism, 13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant, 14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was Saddam), 15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy, Saddam, 16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism, 17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism- appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian- ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized the Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con- quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any- one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ References: - - - Is he at war? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../synopsis.html Excerpt: ... In the 10 years since the Gulf War ended, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said that he has always considered himself at war with America. And during that time, the U.S. has always considered him a threat. ... - - - Motive: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/mylr... Excerpt: ... Saddam's view of the utility of violence is entirely different than ours. ... Saddam sees violence as something that can achieve his goals. He sees a utility in violence. In addition, Saddam seeks revenge against the United States, to do to us what we have done to Iraq. ... - - - Primary goal/character (1 of 2): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi... Excerpt: ... Saddam Hussein thinks he talks to god. He has a message--he has to lead Iraq, make it a model for the Arab countries and then attract the rest of the Arab countries and become the sole Arab leader of modern times. ... There is no stopping the man. He always has things in focus. He never misses a beat. In terms of what the country's all about, and in terms of where his country fits in the whole world. ... - - - Primary goal/character (2 of 2): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... Saddam is very vengeful, and Saddam believes in getting back and attacking. ... - - - Saddam and weapons of mass destruction - differing views of Arabs and Iraqis, generally speaking: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi... Excerpt: ... I don't think there was any Arab in the seventies who did not want Saddam Hussein to have an atomic weapon. They wanted him to have military parity. Israel had atomic weapons. The Arabs wanted an Arab country to have atomic weapons. Iraq was the head of the pack and therefore all Arabs supported Saddam Hussein. ... I don't think there are many Arabs at this moment in time ... who do not want Sad- dam Hussein to have an atomic weapon now. ... there is a division between the vision of Saddam Hussein that the Iraqis have and the vision of Saddam Hussein the rest of the Arabs have. To the rest of the Arabs, he is the man standing up to West. To the Iraqis, he is the man who dragged us into this state of misery. Unwillingly. ... - - - Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear / Biological / Chemical: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/arsenal.html Excerpt: ... In summary, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a "crash program" to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992. ... In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." - - - Inspections a Cure-All? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... The United Nations inspectors had a very mis- guided opinion about what is disarmament. ... They thought if you have something, I take it away from you, and you are disarmed. Despite the knowledge you have, the expertise you gained through the years, your contacts that could re- purchase parts for you and put the thing back together. They discounted all this. If you have a piece of equipment, they take it away, and you are disarmed. This is simplistic. They are not naïve; I talked to them. I talked to many of the inspectors. We had some kind of give and take in this. But they were restricted. ... For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine. ... - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists are there, and he has oil money, to a degree, not as much as before. So what you are getting is a highly weaponized state with a huge terror organ -- the government itself is a terror organ, and several organizations that could be satellites to it, including Al Qaeda. ... A nuclear bomb would turn Saddam into a huge figure in the region. Islamic fundamentalists and many of the Arab nation- alists feel humiliated throughout this century -- the loss of Palestine, the occupation of Arab land by the West, the humil- iation of the region throughout the century; they'll be vindicated with Saddam. Here is a man who can stand up to the West, who made it, who has it, who can do it. He will be a huge figure in the region. And the Arab "street," which we used to think is not very im- portant ... September 11 is telling us, now, is very important, because 14 out of the 19 killer hijackers, 13 or 14, are Saudis, which are basically U.S. allies. So the Saudi street is not stable, is not happy, neither with the government nor with the alliance. So what we are ending with us a breeding ground of groups that would work outside the alliance structure and could support whichever extremist regime they think is attrac- tive to them. ... There was no choice. Absolutely no choice to removing Sad- dam. No alternative. Saddam has to be removed. Otherwise, what you'll have is the region going down the drain, eventually, with all kinds of extremist groups, possible skirmishes, small wars, all kinds of actions. ... - - - Terrorism Training Inside Iraq http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... Excerpt: ... And they trained people to hijack airplanes? Yes. For what purpose? ... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Sad- dam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it. All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests. ... joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Joe wrote:
- - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Martin Baxter wrote: Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, Yeah I like the big bad boss man of the blues on the radio sunday mornings on PBS here in Houston. That how I found out about PBS. I was tossing liberal pre -war chum to the liberal fishies. Gonna see who strikes Joe Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite an indictement. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Capt. JG wrote: I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite an indictement. If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to impeach the President. Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh? Been to any M. Moore flicks lately? Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq: I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the training activities at that center. One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion... that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in- cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq. As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any difference. That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone .... so to speak. My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own perception of what I heard. Best regards to all Bill |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
|
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should be
Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells him to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best interests of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off the table. Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is sworn in. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ps.com... Capt. JG wrote: I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite an indictement. If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to impeach the President. Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh? Been to any M. Moore flicks lately? Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Your buddies are dead on right. Same story in the book I mentioned.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ups.com... Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding our invasion of Iraq: I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the training activities at that center. One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion... that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in- cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq. As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any difference. That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone ... so to speak. My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own perception of what I heard. Best regards to all Bill |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Capt. JG wrote: I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should be Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells him to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best interests of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off the table. Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is sworn in. YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWW Get a rope! Now were going to see some true action, 100 hour! Good Lord! Dang Skippy start poppin corn. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ps.com... Capt. JG wrote: I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite an indictement. If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to impeach the President. Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh? Been to any M. Moore flicks lately? Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda Joe, Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric, MMC |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
MMC wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda Joe, Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric, MMC MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world. Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power and un-oppose him. BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care. Space Troopers! Away Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Well, it can't be worse than the 2000+ days of the Bushco administration...
let's see that's a bit more than a dead US soldier per day. Quite a record. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Capt. JG wrote: I think you're right. Someone should be impeached, but I think it should be Cheney. He deserves it more, since Bush basically does whatever he tells him to do. Pelosi took impeaching the pres off the table in the best interests of the nation, but she didn't take the possible impeachment of the vp off the table. Not 100 days dude... 100 HOURS. We'll see as soon as the new Congress is sworn in. YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWW Get a rope! Now were going to see some true action, 100 hour! Good Lord! Dang Skippy start poppin corn. Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ps.com... Capt. JG wrote: I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite an indictement. If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to impeach the President. Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh? Been to any M. Moore flicks lately? Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG, to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004, Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]" Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... This link points to nowhere. Cheers Marty |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
The next AH without any airforce, army capable of doing much, or WMDs. In
other words, not a threat to the US. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... MMC wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda Joe, Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric, MMC MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world. Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power and un-oppose him. BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care. Space Troopers! Away Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com... The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican. Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar- ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the people of Iraq, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling regime (Marsh Arabs), Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous opulence as his people suffered, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc- tion, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. 6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist entities, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. 7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec- tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's posturing was a miscalculation, but it wouldn't have mattered. Bushco was going to invade no matter what. 8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament as a game, rather than as a goal), So what? He didn't have anything to disarm. 9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder- er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life, Along with Iran and Syria. 10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of Kuwait and Israel and Iran, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and, later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel- oping nuclear weapons), Key phrase, "past efforts." Iraq was no where near having them or even seriously contemplating such a program. 12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant, Bzzzt. Saddam hated and feared Islamic terrorists and never cooperated with them. 14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was Saddam), Complete fabrication on the part of Bushco. 15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy, Saddam, Try picking up a newspaper... that's exactly what they're doing, NOW. Stupid they're not. 16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism, By invading Iraq? What kind of delusion is this? 17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism- appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian- ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized the Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con- quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any- one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny. Nothing to do with Saddam or his capabilities. References: - - - Is he at war? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../synopsis.html Excerpt: ... In the 10 years since the Gulf War ended, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said that he has always considered himself at war with America. And during that time, the U.S. has always considered him a threat. ... - - - Motive: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/mylr... Excerpt: ... Saddam's view of the utility of violence is entirely different than ours. ... Saddam sees violence as something that can achieve his goals. He sees a utility in violence. In addition, Saddam seeks revenge against the United States, to do to us what we have done to Iraq. ... - - - Primary goal/character (1 of 2): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi... Excerpt: ... Saddam Hussein thinks he talks to god. He has a message--he has to lead Iraq, make it a model for the Arab countries and then attract the rest of the Arab countries and become the sole Arab leader of modern times. ... There is no stopping the man. He always has things in focus. He never misses a beat. In terms of what the country's all about, and in terms of where his country fits in the whole world. ... - - - Primary goal/character (2 of 2): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... Saddam is very vengeful, and Saddam believes in getting back and attacking. ... - - - Saddam and weapons of mass destruction - differing views of Arabs and Iraqis, generally speaking: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi... Excerpt: ... I don't think there was any Arab in the seventies who did not want Saddam Hussein to have an atomic weapon. They wanted him to have military parity. Israel had atomic weapons. The Arabs wanted an Arab country to have atomic weapons. Iraq was the head of the pack and therefore all Arabs supported Saddam Hussein. ... I don't think there are many Arabs at this moment in time ... who do not want Sad- dam Hussein to have an atomic weapon now. ... there is a division between the vision of Saddam Hussein that the Iraqis have and the vision of Saddam Hussein the rest of the Arabs have. To the rest of the Arabs, he is the man standing up to West. To the Iraqis, he is the man who dragged us into this state of misery. Unwillingly. ... - - - Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear / Biological / Chemical: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/arsenal.html Excerpt: ... In summary, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a "crash program" to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992. ... In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." - - - Inspections a Cure-All? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... The United Nations inspectors had a very mis- guided opinion about what is disarmament. ... They thought if you have something, I take it away from you, and you are disarmed. Despite the knowledge you have, the expertise you gained through the years, your contacts that could re- purchase parts for you and put the thing back together. They discounted all this. If you have a piece of equipment, they take it away, and you are disarmed. This is simplistic. They are not naïve; I talked to them. I talked to many of the inspectors. We had some kind of give and take in this. But they were restricted. ... For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine. ... - - - If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz... Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region. Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio- logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists are there, and he has oil money, to a degree, not as much as before. So what you are getting is a highly weaponized state with a huge terror organ -- the government itself is a terror organ, and several organizations that could be satellites to it, including Al Qaeda. ... A nuclear bomb would turn Saddam into a huge figure in the region. Islamic fundamentalists and many of the Arab nation- alists feel humiliated throughout this century -- the loss of Palestine, the occupation of Arab land by the West, the humil- iation of the region throughout the century; they'll be vindicated with Saddam. Here is a man who can stand up to the West, who made it, who has it, who can do it. He will be a huge figure in the region. And the Arab "street," which we used to think is not very im- portant ... September 11 is telling us, now, is very important, because 14 out of the 19 killer hijackers, 13 or 14, are Saudis, which are basically U.S. allies. So the Saudi street is not stable, is not happy, neither with the government nor with the alliance. So what we are ending with us a breeding ground of groups that would work outside the alliance structure and could support whichever extremist regime they think is attrac- tive to them. ... There was no choice. Absolutely no choice to removing Sad- dam. No alternative. Saddam has to be removed. Otherwise, what you'll have is the region going down the drain, eventually, with all kinds of extremist groups, possible skirmishes, small wars, all kinds of actions. ... - - - Terrorism Training Inside Iraq http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod... Excerpt: ... And they trained people to hijack airplanes? Yes. For what purpose? ... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Sad- dam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it. All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests. ... joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
What I find truly amazing is that Maliki stood Bush up at the summit.. a
summit that supposed to be an important step to solving the Iraqi problem. Of course, Bushco refuses to talk to the major players in the region who could actually do something, but they did get Cheney out of his undisclosed location long enough to fly to Saudi Arabia for a 20 minute kumbaya sing-along with the addict and his oil dealer. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... On 28 Nov 2006 19:24:18 -0800, "Joe" scribbled thusly: BTW IMO WMD had nothing to do with the justification of taking out Saddam Joe You have a very short memory Joe. That was the whole reason for the invasion....It's only after when they discovered no WMD that the line about saving the poor people from a dreadful leader was promoted...all while the country was falling apart and tens of thousands were being killed. You think Iraq is now better off? Look again..we stuffed it...civil war is happening despite the denials...Vietnam was a success compared to the mess we've created in Iraq and which has now outflowed to contaminate the whole Globe..... Thank George! Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace, We've been expecting you. |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
OzOne wrote: On 28 Nov 2006 19:24:18 -0800, "Joe" scribbled thusly: BTW IMO WMD had nothing to do with the justification of taking out Saddam Joe You have a very short memory Joe. I seem to remember this, why don't you? In 1998 the Congress of the United States passed the "Iraqi Liberation Act." This act was promoted and signed into law by then President Clinton. This Act called for support of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) and the removal of Saddam from power. The Iraqi Liberation Act was enacted and was black letter law long before President Bush was elected as President. President Bush inherited this law, and the removal of Saddam had already been mandated by the US Congress long before President Bush took office. In October 2001, the US Congress voted unanimously (save one traitor from California) to resolve that "a state of war exists between the USA and all international terrorists and all those that aid or harbor terrorists." This Congressional resolution provided President Bush with the individual power to determine which entities and nations were either terrorists or aiding or harboring terrorists, and further, granted President Bush *exclusive* discretion to use the full weight of the US Military to hunt down or otherwise eliminate any such designated enemies. Saddam had developed his own terrorist faction called the Fedayeen, and these terrorist goons surfaced during the invasion of Iraq. These terrorists were not only responsible for murderous attacks on coalition forces, they also were murdering Iraqis that refused to fight and were further holding hostage the families of Iraqi soldiers. In true radical Muslim style, these Fedayeen terrorists also traveled around the Iraqi countryside decapitating Iraqi women that had committed the unspeakable crime of simply waiving at the coalition forces. Saddam openly admitted and bragged about sending money and arms to the Palestinian terrorist organizations known as Hamas, PLO, and Islamic Jihad. All three of those terrorist organizations have murdered Americans in the past, and are well-known terrorist organizations. On December 27, 2000, Saddam openly and publically declared war on the United States, Britain and Israel. Saddam's declaration of war occurred only ten months prior to the 911 massacres, and his declaration of war was carried on the front pages of all the Baghdad newspapers, and on the front page of most Arabic European newspapers. Under the articles of the Geneva Convention, any nation in receipt of an official declaration of war has a right to preemptively attack the nation that issued the war declaration. The USA and Britain not only had the legal right to invade Iraq and depose Saddam due to the violation of not less than seventeen UN Resolutions since the Gulf War, they also had the moral authority and the ethical necessity to do so. And I remember the start of this thread were 11 australian's took 290 million in bribes from Saddam, helping him to snub his nose at all the UN demands. Joe That was the whole reason for the invasion....It's only after when they discovered no WMD that the line about saving the poor people from a dreadful leader was promoted...all while the country was falling apart and tens of thousands were being killed. You think Iraq is now better off? Most Iraqi's yes Look again..we stuffed it...civil war is happening despite the denials...Vietnam was a success compared to the mess we've created in Iraq and which has now outflowed to contaminate the whole Globe..... Yeah, now Beruit, syria, n.korea, iran, syria all hate us..I miss the warm fuzzy feeling I use to get from thoses country's. Joe Thank George! Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace, We've been expecting you. |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... MMC wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda Joe, Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric, MMC MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world. Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power and un-oppose him. BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care. Who told you this? Rush Limpdick? Space Troopers! Away That is funny coming from someone mainlining the bush koolaid. Joe So buddy, you headed down to the recruiters office? Or are your patriotic duties covered by that yellow ribbon sticker on the back of your car? MMC |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
MMC wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... MMC wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda Joe, Not wanting to take over the world is "anti American"? What was your first book? Here ya go buddy http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Sounds a little more in line with your rhetoric, MMC MMC only a fool thinks America is trying to take over the world. Only a fool would sit around and watch the next Hitler rise to power and un-oppose him. BTW Saddam was a big fan of Mein Kampf and Hitler, not that you care. Who told you this? Rush Limpdick? THE SOURCES Here are 5 biographies on Saddam, all provide the evidence for comparison. Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography, by Efraim Karsh, Inari Rautsi I Was Saddam's Son, by Latif Yahya Saddam's Bombmaker: The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's Secret Weapon by Khidr Abd Al-Abbas Hamzah, Khidhir Hamza, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, by Said K. Aburish Saddam: King of Terror, by Con Coughlin Saddam was also a big fan of Stalin If you believe in evil, then there is no doubt that Saddam is horribly evil. If you dont believe in evil, then you will have to acknowledge that Saddam is a terribly "disfunctional" person (yes, he was abused as a child -- read his biographies). It is a seperate issue whether the US has sufficient cause to take military action against Saddam's regime, but it is clear that Saddam is very much like both Hitler and Stalin both in goals and methods. THE COMPARISON SADDAM HUSSEIN dreams of being a new Saladin and seeks the renification of the Arabic people and a return to its former glories. This is not new, it was the goal of the Baathist party which he joined in 1957. To accomplish this he invaded Iran with the intent to annex its Western provinces which have an Arabic majority (as differentiated from the Persians who dominate Iran as a whole). He also attempted to annex Kuwait which he viewed as historically part of Iraq. While Saddam is less "crazy" than Hitler, he has no commitment to a racial view of history or any other ideology, Saddam is every bit as megalomaniacal. Saddam is also similar to Hitler in that given the opportunity he would certainly destroy all Jews. They both have contempt for basic human rights, both being willing to engage in any depravity necessary to accomplish their goals. Saddam has been quoted by people who have met him as saying that he admires Stalin and models his goverment after Stalin's machinery of terror. Space Troopers! Away That is funny coming from someone mainlining the bush koolaid. You're the dip who's posting rant's about America's New Space Force. put the crack pipe down for a minute. Joe So buddy, you headed down to the recruiters office? Did my tour in the Navy, if they needed me now I assure you I'd be there. Or are your patriotic duties covered by that yellow ribbon sticker on the back of your car? MMC Beats the rainbow sticker on your car . Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Slightly off topic but related to the world problems that now exist... and don't know if this web site has been referred to previously. It's message/presentation is enough to cause concern even with a moderate such as myself. http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm Kind of scary... you'll see... if you watch the 12 minute promo. Especially it's depiction of the "youth movement". Bill |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
wrote Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding our invasion of Iraq: I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert of Southern California. Is this you???? http://www.warnockworkbench.com/ Kewl lake. Kewler house. Cheers, Ellen |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
It's become glaringly obvious that Mr. Hussein was a necessity in Iraq. He
needs to be released, apologized to, and allowed to control the savages in the previous manner. |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Is this you???? Yeh Ellen... That's were I live and my "cave" as I call it. But I keep my little boat (Mac) at a marina located in Oxnard California... which is right next to Port Hueneme which Joe and some of the other Navy vets would be familiar with . Bill: You can also visit: www.billwarnock.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
wrote You can also visit: www.billwarnock.com It's amazing. Tami's daughter's the spitting image of her and her son's the spitting image of his dad.... And, it's nice to see a family that's not obese. And you made your living room your *command post*. ;-) Cheers, Ellen |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Joe wrote: Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Guess what? We don't really give a rat's ass. We're gonna prosecute the silly *******s for carelessness & arrogance, not for selling wheat. They broke the 11th commandment. As for the war, go peddle it elsewhere. You've been in favour of it all along. At least up until recently when it seems to *finally* be sinking in that it's going tits-up in a big way. Now you're looking for a scapegoat. Heh. Reminds me of the lifecycle of software development projects. 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic. 4. Search for the guilty 5. Punishment of the innocent 6. Rewards for those who avoided any commitment. Seems you've finally reached stage 4. Congratulations! PDW |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Capt. JG wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican. Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar- ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the people of Iraq, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Most Americans can see thru any rhetoric. Saddam needed to be taken out. That was crystal clear. If you choose to rush thru pasting answers check the spelling. 2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Well mass murder must be OK then, we should look the other way right? 3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling regime (Marsh Arabs), Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Genocide is OK as long as we hate bush. 4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous opulence as his people suffered, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. So then it's OK to starve children? 5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc- tion, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. Liar. Sucker...or just plain dumbass. 6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist entities, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. He bragged of sending Hammas suicide bombers families cash (rewards) but thats not in anyway a clue to what he would do in the future is it? 7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec- tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's posturing was a miscalculation, but it wouldn't have mattered. Bushco was going to invade no matter what. A simple mistake ...the poor mis-understood gentlemen. 10 yrs of posturing who can blame him for telling the UN and the USA to **** off, no one had the balls to comfront him. 8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament as a game, rather than as a goal), So what? He didn't have anything to disarm. So jon, if you had no cocaine in your car, and a cop pulled you over and said he wanted to look for cocaine, or he was going to blow your brains out, would you "POSTURE" and miscalculate? I would if the cop was a liberal pussy pansy assed little douchbag. Maybe thats how you want our country to be seen as again. Is that part of the first 100 hours goals? 9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder- er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life, Along with Iran and Syria. Yeah and look how embolden the leader of Iran has become since the mid-terms, he loves you guys, you have a new friend. 10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of Kuwait and Israel and Iran, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. All that oil burning was pretty huh, WTF Red and his boys made a killing. 11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and, later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel- oping nuclear weapons), Key phrase, "past efforts." Iraq was no where near having them or even seriously contemplating such a program. Says you... 12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Well screw them then huh Jon, just as long as we can hate bushco 13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant, Bzzzt. Saddam hated and feared Islamic terrorists and never cooperated with them. But he loved us,,,,, right Jon? 14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was Saddam), Complete fabrication on the part of Bushco. Oh then that Kuwait, iran thingy, was just a way for Saddam to pass his time. Have you read anything about Saddam? 15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy, Saddam, Try picking up a newspaper... that's exactly what they're doing, NOW. Stupid they're not. Oh..I saw that, I have faith the dems are going to solve that little problem in the first 100 hr program 16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism, By invading Iraq? What kind of delusion is this? If you shoot one rat, the others scurry and are skiddish. 17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism- appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian- ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized the Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con- quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any- one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny. Nothing to do with Saddam or his capabilities. Sure Jon...sure Joe |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com... Capt. JG wrote: "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican. Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. 1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar- ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the people of Iraq, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Most Americans can see thru any rhetoric. Saddam needed to be taken out. That was crystal clear. That was not what we were told. We were told that he was an iminent threat. Bushso lied. If you choose to rush thru pasting answers check the spelling. 2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Well mass murder must be OK then, we should look the other way right? No. We should not lie about the reasons for war. Bushco lied. 3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling regime (Marsh Arabs), Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Genocide is OK as long as we hate bush. Bushco lied. He justified killing 3000 US troops, maiming 20K, and killing 100s of 1000s of innocent Iraqis by lying. 4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous opulence as his people suffered, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. So then it's OK to starve children? Is it better to kill 100s of 1000s of innocent civilians? 5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc- tion, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. Liar. Sucker...or just plain dumbass. Talking about yourself or Bush? 6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist entities, Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over. He bragged of sending Hammas suicide bombers families cash (rewards) but thats not in anyway a clue to what he would do in the future is it? In fact, that's quite different than attacking the US. Hammas wasn't a threat to the US, and the Israels are quite capable of defending themselves. 7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec- tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's posturing was a miscalculation, but it wouldn't have mattered. Bushco was going to invade no matter what. A simple mistake ...the poor mis-understood gentlemen. 10 yrs of posturing who can blame him for telling the UN and the USA to **** off, no one had the balls to comfront him. And, there was need to invade to get rid of him. If BushI had supported the Shiites after the first was, Saddam wouldn't have been there. 8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament as a game, rather than as a goal), So what? He didn't have anything to disarm. So jon, if you had no cocaine in your car, and a cop pulled you over and said he wanted to look for cocaine, or he was going to blow your brains out, would you "POSTURE" and miscalculate? I would if the cop was a liberal pussy pansy assed little douchbag. Maybe thats how you want our country to be seen as again. Is that part of the first 100 hours goals? As usual, this makes no sense. Grow up Joe. We went to war on a lie. 9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder- er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life, Along with Iran and Syria. Yeah and look how embolden the leader of Iran has become since the mid-terms, he loves you guys, you have a new friend. So, when is Bushco going to invade? NEVER. Neither is he going to invade N. Korea. Sounds like appeasement to me. 10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of Kuwait and Israel and Iran, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. All that oil burning was pretty huh, WTF Red and his boys made a killing. Nothing to do with the war in this century. Talk to BushI who actually did something right. 11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and, later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel- oping nuclear weapons), Key phrase, "past efforts." Iraq was no where near having them or even seriously contemplating such a program. Says you... Says just about everyone who isn't too dumb to accept reality. 12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism, Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric. Well screw them then huh Jon, just as long as we can hate bushco Your words not mine. 13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant, Bzzzt. Saddam hated and feared Islamic terrorists and never cooperated with them. But he loved us,,,,, right Jon? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was Saddam), Complete fabrication on the part of Bushco. Oh then that Kuwait, iran thingy, was just a way for Saddam to pass his time. Have you read anything about Saddam? He was totally contained and on the way out. Bushco lied and 3000 died. 15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy, Saddam, Try picking up a newspaper... that's exactly what they're doing, NOW. Stupid they're not. Oh..I saw that, I have faith the dems are going to solve that little problem in the first 100 hr program Didn't say they would. But, they won't invade Iraq to deal with Iran. 16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism, By invading Iraq? What kind of delusion is this? If you shoot one rat, the others scurry and are skiddish. Really? Except for Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and the list goes on. 17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism- appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian- ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized the Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con- quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any- one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny. Nothing to do with Saddam or his capabilities. Sure Jon...sure Yes. |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
"Peter" wrote in message ups.com... Joe wrote: Now Oz'es monopoly grain export company AWB faces the loss of its 67-year-old government-sanctioned stranglehold on exports after the Cole report into the company's $290 million in kickbacks to Iraq this week recommended possible criminal charges against 11 former executives and an oil businessman. Sorry *******s helped Saddam snub his nose at UN sanctions after the first gulf war. If these traitors did not help Saddam then perhaps the war would not have been needed. Perhaps sanctions would have worked. Guess what? We don't really give a rat's ass. We're gonna prosecute the silly *******s for carelessness & arrogance, not for selling wheat. They broke the 11th commandment. As for the war, go peddle it elsewhere. You've been in favour of it all along. At least up until recently when it seems to *finally* be sinking in that it's going tits-up in a big way. Now you're looking for a scapegoat. Heh. Reminds me of the lifecycle of software development projects. 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic. 4. Search for the guilty 5. Punishment of the innocent 6. Rewards for those who avoided any commitment. Seems you've finally reached stage 4. Congratulations! PDW Great post! |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
In article . com,
wrote: Slightly off topic but related to the world problems that now exist... and don't know if this web site has been referred to previously. It's message/presentation is enough to cause concern even with a moderate such as myself. http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm Kind of scary... you'll see... if you watch the 12 minute promo. Especially it's depiction of the "youth movement". Scary, but a not justification for attacking Iraq. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article . com, wrote: Slightly off topic but related to the world problems that now exist... and don't know if this web site has been referred to previously. It's message/presentation is enough to cause concern even with a moderate such as myself. http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm Kind of scary... you'll see... if you watch the 12 minute promo. Especially it's depiction of the "youth movement". Scary, but a not justification for attacking Iraq. Just keep your head up your ass Jon. Joe -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
In article .com,
Joe wrote: Just keep your head up your ass Jon. So, you have nothing logical or even intelligent to say, and thus we get this from you. That's pretty sad Joe. Why don't you sign up to fight in Iraq. I'm sure they could use you. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article .com, Joe wrote: Just keep your head up your ass Jon. So, you have nothing logical or even intelligent to say, and thus we get this from you. That's pretty sad Joe. Why don't you sign up to fight in Iraq. I'm sure they could use you. Face it, taking out Sddam and whats happening now in Iraq are 2 different things. The people who have been attacking us since 1977 (radical Islamist) are now taking us on in Iraq. We captured weapons yeaterday that were shipped in to the insurgents from Iran, just made in Iran. Hammas is overthrowing it's elected govt today. The mid-terms again emboldened the terrorist as they now know our resolve has again hit the snooze button. But WTF... those first 100 hr's are going to put an end to the BS, and Bushco will get the thrashing they deserve. Joe -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Two different things????? They're totally related. They're totally Bush's
doing. How are they not related?????? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ps.com... Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article .com, Joe wrote: Just keep your head up your ass Jon. So, you have nothing logical or even intelligent to say, and thus we get this from you. That's pretty sad Joe. Why don't you sign up to fight in Iraq. I'm sure they could use you. Face it, taking out Sddam and whats happening now in Iraq are 2 different things. The people who have been attacking us since 1977 (radical Islamist) are now taking us on in Iraq. We captured weapons yeaterday that were shipped in to the insurgents from Iran, just made in Iran. Hammas is overthrowing it's elected govt today. The mid-terms again emboldened the terrorist as they now know our resolve has again hit the snooze button. But WTF... those first 100 hr's are going to put an end to the BS, and Bushco will get the thrashing they deserve. Joe -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia helped Saddam's dictatorship
Capt. JG wrote: Two different things????? Yes. Saddam is out...mission accomplished. New problem..the country is now a magnet for radical islamist, insurgents. They are the fellows making the roadside bombs ect...supported by countries like Iran and former members of Saddam terrorist group the fattayene(sp?) And the locals would rather kill each other than share and get along. All they have known since the Saddam took over is leadership thru murder and terror, hard for them to adjust i guess, let's hope the new elected leadership with our limited help can bring about stability. They're totally related. They're totally Bush's doing. How are they not related?????? Dealing with Islamist terrorist's, and the people who harbor and support them is now SOP. That may change in the first 100 hrs, but until then thats how I see it. Terrorist and those harboring and supporting islamist terrorist have been doing it since the late 1960's. Countries should understand we will come after and keep after them until they change or die, even if they do not like us. Thats not going to change is it? We are not going back to the hit the snooze button and wait days are we? I do not think the islamist fanatics are going to change, do you? This seems to be a global war now Jon, jihad been going on before we took out Saddam and will be around long after Bush is out of office. The question is how are we going to deal with it? Should we roll over and give in to murdering cowards? Guys who find glory cutting your head off in the name of allah. Wait to act until we get hit here again? Do you need to see rice a ronnie trollies in SF loaded with suicide bombers before you feel a need to react and deal with the problem? Joe -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message ps.com... Jonathan Ganz wrote: In article .com, Joe wrote: Just keep your head up your ass Jon. So, you have nothing logical or even intelligent to say, and thus we get this from you. That's pretty sad Joe. Why don't you sign up to fight in Iraq. I'm sure they could use you. Face it, taking out Sddam and whats happening now in Iraq are 2 different things. The people who have been attacking us since 1977 (radical Islamist) are now taking us on in Iraq. We captured weapons yeaterday that were shipped in to the insurgents from Iran, just made in Iran. Hammas is overthrowing it's elected govt today. The mid-terms again emboldened the terrorist as they now know our resolve has again hit the snooze button. But WTF... those first 100 hr's are going to put an end to the BS, and Bushco will get the thrashing they deserve. Joe -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com