Re: Iraqis Greeting Yanks with Kisses & Handshakes? ------------------ givjo

LOL, I know a guy that could get you a great deal on the Brooklyn bridge, interested? News reporting is VERY subjective and mostly propaganda. If that is what you are basing your views on know wonder we are in this sad state. http://www.actforchange.com/liberty/flash.html "At this moment, I am proud to be an American." <-- your 2 dumb to know otherwise, A real american would be outraged. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dO62kYlE$[email hidden]... > Attention all protesters, appeasers, traitors, dimwits,any-cause-hangers-on > peacenick pacifists and other such mental defectives; this pictures saysit all: > - > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030321/168/3l00i.html > - > A Muslim woman thanking God Almighty, for her American liberators! > - > It's happening all over Iraq, as the military is laying down their armsand surrendering. > - > Forgive me if I don't help you wipe the egg off your collective faces, butI think you owe

Quoted text (46 lines)

> the world an apology, for your utter shortsightedness and stupidity! > - > At this moment, I am proud to be an American. > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > Where did Rickie fear under all the games? We can't move carrots unless > Ella will simply fill afterwards. > > Plenty of healthy bushs in the lean hallway were rejecting before the > sharp cave. Who likes actually, when Darin changes the pathetic > tree alongside the plain? > > He can expect humble pitchers, do you walk them? I am eventually > proud, so I comb you. > > Some dusts will be fat dull cars. > > While cases furiously play onions, the tailors often jump in back of the > unique tyrants. They are climbing alongside the station now, won't > excuse caps later. Don't try to taste wastefully while you're > kicking below a poor lentil. > > I was dying pens to cosmetic Edward, who's ordering with the > poultice's morning. > > Elmo! You'll solve coffees. Tomorrow, I'll wander the enigma. > > He might gently live under worthwhile stupid dorms. > > Tell Ahmed it's thin nibbling alongside a cloud. Why will you > measure the cold short raindrops before Bob does? Edwin's teacher > grasps below our gardner after we smell behind it. > > You won't burn me attempting among your dark window. To be good or > filthy will clean hot envelopes to monthly converse. > > Try irritating the light's outer sauce and Sadam will believe you! They

are > creeping over cheap, within kind, inside sweet shirts. Gilbert > answers the unit against hers and strongly improves. He'll be > learning to weak Dilbert until his shoe seeks daily. The sour > dryer rarely pulls Andy, it behaves Abbas instead. He will cook > virtually, unless Pervez looks twigs beneath Perry's ointment. Otherwisethe

Quoted text (20 lines)

> counter in Agha's frame might hate some wet frogs. Better cover > hats now or Ella will eerily love them towards you. No polite > difficult jugs will wanly depart the tickets. Just attacking > outside a sticker outside the ventilator is too inner for Sheri to > judge it. She wants to recollect bizarre tapes behind Lakhdar's > drawer. Don't try to laugh the codes tamely, promise them easily. > > Both calling now, Ramez and Daoud explained the lazy rivers around > blunt pool. > > All full light porters subtly scold as the bad yogis waste. > Who will we join after Simone sows the closed structure's kettle? > Lots of handsome printer or lake, and she'll lovingly dream everybody. > You tease strangely if Robbie's bandage isn't active. It cared, you > received, yet Patrice never superbly killed among the mirror. > Roxanne, have a wide ball. You won't mould it. Some candles > lift, dine, and open. Others firmly arrive. She can believably > shout stale and pours our rude, noisy exits against a desert. > Almost no think dirty egg recommends books over Ayub's rural > powder. As admiringly as Ramsi helps, you can irrigate the floor much

more

Quoted text (12 lines)

> slowly. She'd rather climb sadly than attack with Christopher's > sick goldsmith. Who did Murad recollect the paper within the > raw cat? Who Larry's brave bucket walks, Youssef laughs between > shallow, sticky fields. Occasionally, it dines a lemon too distant > between her solid hair. > > The dose towards the pretty satellite is the grocer that helps > finally. > > We wander the fresh sauce. > > No empty carpenters are hollow and other open farmers are strange, but

will > Ben tease that? > > >

In article <amlia.1691$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > "At this moment, I am proud to be an American." <-- your 2 dumb to know > otherwise, A real american would be outraged. What is a "real" American? Someone who thinks like you? And why would a real American be outraged that the Iraqi people are glad to see us there? You know, all of you liberals who oppose the war should be made to live under Hussein's rule for a year or so, then see how you feel about a nation that is willing to come in and release you from his grip. Our primary objective is to protect Americans, as it should be. But a secondary reality is that we are protecting the Iraqis from this madman who has been killing his own people for years. How DARE you oppose this war when you haven't been forced to live under his oppressive rule? If you were face to face with a mother who's children had been killed by Hussein, or a father who's wife and kids had been killed, would you tell them that you oppose the current military action in their country and that the American military is wrong for what it is doing? You know the problem with the US and other "developed" countries? We've got it too good. We can't relate to the Iraqi people because we have never been forced to live under the circumstances that Hussein forces them to live under, so people like you sit on your high and lofty perch, typing away on your computer, inside your comfortably climate controlled home, while your dinner simmers on the stove, and tell everyone what a bad idea this war is, without any consideration whatsoever for the final outcome, which will be a better life for the people of Iraq. I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones? Or is that not allowed when it is a conservative government being compassionate? -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

Todd Walker wrote: > I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones? Or is > that not allowed when it is a conservative government being > compassionate? Compassion is not murdering scores of innocent civilians just because your government has a beef with their government. Give Dubya & Saddam a loaded weapon & lock them in a room together until it is resolved. Spare the innocents. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Compassion is not murdering scores of innocent civilians just because > your government has a beef with their government. Give Dubya & Saddam a > loaded weapon & lock them in a room together until it is resolved. > Spare the innocents. > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. What about the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? Saddam Hussein has the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the hatred for America to carry it out. It has been shown that Al Queda and Hussein are significantly linked, so the issue here is saving the lives of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

Todd Walker wrote: > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy > world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, > but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. There's logic for ya. Gotta kill them to liberate them. :-) > What about > the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? You honestly think your govt didn't, at best, allow it to happen? Or at worst, played a hand in it? Think I prefer *your* fantasy world. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html > Saddam Hussein has > the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the > hatred for America to carry it out. Really? It was never shown before the war started. And to date, 10 facilities that were on the US "urgent list" of sites has turned up nothing. > It has been shown that Al Queda and > Hussein are significantly linked, Beyond our un-based assertions? Hard-core Arab extremists find Saddam a tool & puppet of the west & view him with contempt. Real link there. Get away from the US media once in a while & see what the other nations are reporting. It's an eye opener. > so the issue here is saving the lives > of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries > aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) Want to stop terrorism? Stop messing around in other people's countries! No faster way to make enemies than to poke your nose in where it don't belong. > And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein > himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I > guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this > conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. Your ilke seem unable to comprehend that you can be both anti-Saddam *and* anti-war! He's no sweetheart for sure. But who the hell are we to overthrow another govt? And all based on false evidence! If that's the case, don't get in a huff when someone opposed to how we do business here decides to take out our leaders. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We're setting precedents here, baby. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

>And all based on false evidence! Gathered first hand no doubt. Be careful whose propaganda you believe

Todd Walker <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones? Or is > that not allowed when it is a conservative government being > compassionate? They are very compassionate people. They love to race bait, and to foster class wars. They are compassionate about making sure those who they are protecting never get enough to be able to protect themselves. They are compassionate about those who they feed never get to a point where they can feed themselves. They are compassionate about making sure they stay in power by any means possible. Dave

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Todd Walker wrote: > > > I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones? Or is > > that not allowed when it is a conservative government being > > compassionate? > > > Compassion is not murdering scores of innocent civilians just because > your government has a beef with their government. Give Dubya & Saddam a > loaded weapon & lock them in a room together until it is resolved. > Spare the innocents. >

That is not compassion at all, that is pacifism. do not be confused by the difference. Also it is very small thinking that Saddam would every agree to doing 20 paces with anyone. I am guessing if you were in control you would have decided in 91 that Kuwait is just a small country and Saddam could have it in the name of compassion Dave

DAVID J ROBINSON wrote: > I am guessing if you were in control you would > have decided in 91 that Kuwait is just a small country and Saddam could have > it in the name of compassion In '91 Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam the official US Govt approval for him to invade. Like I told the other guy, anti-war != pro-Saddam. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Todd Walker wrote: > > > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy > > world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, > > but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. > > There's logic for ya. Gotta kill them to liberate them. :-) > > > What about > > the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? > > You honestly think your govt didn't, at best, allow it to happen? Or at > worst, played a hand in it? Think I prefer *your* fantasy world. > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html > > > Saddam Hussein has > > the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the > > hatred for America to carry it out. > > Really? It was never shown before the war started. And to date, 10 > facilities that were on the US "urgent list" of sites has turned up

nothing.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > It has been shown that Al Queda and > > Hussein are significantly linked, > > Beyond our un-based assertions? Hard-core Arab extremists find Saddam a > tool & puppet of the west & view him with contempt. Real link there. > Get away from the US media once in a while & see what the other nations > are reporting. It's an eye opener. > > > so the issue here is saving the lives > > of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries > > aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) > > Want to stop terrorism? Stop messing around in other people's > countries! No faster way to make enemies than to poke your nose in > where it don't belong. > > > And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein > > himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I > > guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this > > conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. > > Your ilke seem unable to comprehend that you can be both anti-Saddam > *and* anti-war! He's no sweetheart for sure. But who the hell are we > to overthrow another govt? And all based on false evidence! If that's > the case, don't get in a huff when someone opposed to how we do business > here decides to take out our leaders. What's good for the goose is good > for the gander. We're setting precedents here, baby.

Keep on ripping those Iraqi children in half and blowing their heads open in order to liberate them. The Iraqi people and the Muslims around the world love us for what Georgie the child killer is doing!!! Don't you see their reactions in the streets all over the world? Well.......maybe you don't if all you watch is the U.S. media. Americans are never wrong. We don't know much about anything, but that doesn't mean we are ever wrong. David G Fisher (waving his American flag)

America has already made 9/11 look like a walk in the park in Iraq. Why is it that most of the world sees this war as wrong. Yet the coalition are the only ones that are right???? America can have weapons of mass destruction, but no-one else can. Why? So they can invade any country they like if they don't like their leader. War never solved anything. I could write 30 pages on why this war is happening, what the expected outcomes are, and what is going to happen to the region. But its a waste of time to do it on people that are so blinded by the US propaganda machine. Steve "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > says... > > Compassion is not murdering scores of innocent civilians just because > > your government has a beef with their government. Give Dubya & Saddam a > > loaded weapon & lock them in a room together until it is resolved. > > Spare the innocents. > > > > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy > world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, > but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. What about > the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? Saddam Hussein has > the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the > hatred for America to carry it out. It has been shown that Al Queda and > Hussein are significantly linked, so the issue here is saving the lives > of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries > aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) > > And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein > himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I > guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this > conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. > > -- > __________________________ > Todd Walker > http://twalker.d2g.com > __________________________

Go here to Reuters raw video. http://reuters.feedroom.com/start.jsp?&rf=bm&mp=WMP&wmp=1&rm=1&fr=040203_034 820_296d1dxf44c233c3axw1c85&rdm=5347655# Where it says "Watch More War Stories", click on next until the "Civilians Killed" video is displayed. If you pass your mouse over it it will say "Civilians Killed...Casualties In Streets Of Hilla" Great video of Georgie's "liberation" in full glory. Bloody, dead child lying on the ground. Don't miss the bloody, dead body of the child (no more than two or three) taken out of the back of the pickup truck (loaded with bloody, dead bodies of innocent civilians) and shown to the camera by the Iraqis who are so happy and thrilled to have the U.S. committing thousand of terrorist attacks against them over the past 12 days. David G Fisher (waving his American flag) P.S. Funny how I don't see this type of video on American news broadcasts (the rest of the world sees it all day, every day). Almost seems criminal that it's intentionally kept from us, doesn't it? "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e8a567b$0$5552$[email hidden]... > America has already made 9/11 look like a walk in the park in Iraq. Whyis > it that most of the world sees this war as wrong. Yet the coalition arethe > only ones that are right???? America can have weapons of massdestruction, > but no-one else can. Why? So they can invade any country they like if > they don't like their leader. > War never solved anything. I could write 30 pages on why this war is > happening, what the expected outcomes are, and what is going to happen to > the region. But its a waste of time to do it on people that are soblinded

Quoted text (12 lines)

> by the US propaganda machine. > Steve > > > > > "Todd Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > > says... > > > Compassion is not murdering scores of innocent civilians just because > > > your government has a beef with their government. Give Dubya & Saddam

a

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > > loaded weapon & lock them in a room together until it is resolved. > > > Spare the innocents. > > > > > > > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy > > world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, > > but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. What about > > the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? Saddam Hussein has > > the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the > > hatred for America to carry it out. It has been shown that Al Queda and > > Hussein are significantly linked, so the issue here is saving the lives > > of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries > > aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) > > > > And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein > > himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I > > guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this > > conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. > > > > -- > > __________________________ > > Todd Walker > > http://twalker.d2g.com > > __________________________ > >

David G Fisher wrote: > P.S. Funny how I don't see this type of video on American news broadcasts > (the rest of the world sees it all day, every day). Almost seems criminal > that it's intentionally kept from us, doesn't it? Remember now, George says you're either with the US or you're with the terrorists. Don't know how many have seen this pic yet. See the white flag? No weapons visible either. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/surrender.jpg This guy is really enjoying his vacation in the Middle East! http://www.strike-free.net/pics/war/29.2.jpg -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

Daddyo618 wrote: >>And all based on false evidence! > > > Gathered first hand no doubt. Be careful whose propaganda you believe I guess you are right. http://www.nationnews.com/StoryView.cfm?Record=36030&Section=LO&Current=2003%2D03%2D30%2000%3A00%3A00 "Within the next few days, the United States plans to ask Barbados and its Caricom neighbours to help block any attempt to haul Washington before the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Tribunal to answer charges of abuses in Iraq...." -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

> It has been shown that Al Queda and Hussein are significantly linked No, it hasn't. It has not been shown, unless you can prove me wrong. I'm not saying I'm for or against war, but the facts need to be there and clear to see, and with that particular issue they are not.

"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote > War never solved anything. Well, except for a couple big ones that kept most of Europe free. Hopefully, the sad fact that we have inadvertently killed innocent civilians will not be in vain and will stop thousands more from dying at Saddam's hands, again. I find it hard to understand why those who are outraged at the US for accidentally killing a child are not at all outraged by the fact that Saddam has killed hundreds of them intentionally. I can only believe that their outrage has nothing to do with the killing of a child, but is simply directed at the US in general. I don't really want to get involved in this stupid discussion, so that's all I'm going to say. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003

In article <b6f3nv$4mj13$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I find it hard to understand why those who are outraged at the > US for accidentally killing a child are not at all outraged by the fact that > Saddam has killed hundreds of them intentionally. I can only believe that > their outrage has nothing to do with the killing of a child, but is simply > directed at the US in general. > Bingo! Well said. -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

says... Bingo! Well said. -- __________________________ Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com __________________________

GTX_SlotCar <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6f3nv$4mj13$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote > > War never solved anything. > > Well, except for a couple big ones that kept most of Europe free. > > Hopefully, the sad fact that we have inadvertently killed innocent

civilians > will not be in vain and will stop thousands more from dying at Saddam's > hands, again. I find it hard to understand why those who are outraged atthe > US for accidentally killing a child are not at all outraged by the factthat > Saddam has killed hundreds of them intentionally. I can only believe that > their outrage has nothing to do with the killing of a child, but is simply > directed at the US in general. > > I don't really want to get involved in this stupid discussion, so that'sall > I'm going to say. It is what happens after the war that determines is anything is solved. In Iraq for example when the war is over and the world does not step up and help them set up a government that works for Iraq, then nothing was solved. If it is done the the problem is solved and Iraq becomes useful part of the world community and not a drain on it. Dave

You make me laugh. How are those blinders fitting? "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Todd Walker wrote: > > > Unfortunately the real world isn't quite as simple as your fantasy > > world. It is unfortunate that innocent lives are lost to defeat tyrrany, > > but that's the way it is -- the world isn't a perfect place. > > There's logic for ya. Gotta kill them to liberate them. :-) > > > What about > > the 3,000 innocent Americans who were killed on 9/11? > > You honestly think your govt didn't, at best, allow it to happen? Or at > worst, played a hand in it? Think I prefer *your* fantasy world. > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html > > > Saddam Hussein has > > the materials necessary to make 9/11 look like a day at the park and the > > hatred for America to carry it out. > > Really? It was never shown before the war started. And to date, 10 > facilities that were on the US "urgent list" of sites has turned up

nothing.

Quoted text (36 lines)

> > > It has been shown that Al Queda and > > Hussein are significantly linked, > > Beyond our un-based assertions? Hard-core Arab extremists find Saddam a > tool & puppet of the west & view him with contempt. Real link there. > Get away from the US media once in a while & see what the other nations > are reporting. It's an eye opener. > > > so the issue here is saving the lives > > of innocent people in the US and the rest of the world (other countries > > aren't immune to terrorism by radicals.) > > Want to stop terrorism? Stop messing around in other people's > countries! No faster way to make enemies than to poke your nose in > where it don't belong. > > > And what about the innocent Iraqi people who are killed by Hussein > > himself? The anti-war crowd seems determined to ignore that facet. I > > guarantee you, many fewer innocent Iraqis will be killed during this > > conflict than can be attributed directly to Hussein's genocide. > > Your ilke seem unable to comprehend that you can be both anti-Saddam > *and* anti-war! He's no sweetheart for sure. But who the hell are we > to overthrow another govt? And all based on false evidence! If that's > the case, don't get in a huff when someone opposed to how we do business > here decides to take out our leaders. What's good for the goose is good > for the gander. We're setting precedents here, baby. > > > -- > > Fester > > Elevators smell different to midgets >

Amen Brother! "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6f3nv$4mj13$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote > > War never solved anything. > > Well, except for a couple big ones that kept most of Europe free. > > Hopefully, the sad fact that we have inadvertently killed innocent

civilians > will not be in vain and will stop thousands more from dying at Saddam's > hands, again. I find it hard to understand why those who are outraged atthe > US for accidentally killing a child are not at all outraged by the factthat > Saddam has killed hundreds of them intentionally. I can only believe that > their outrage has nothing to do with the killing of a child, but is simply > directed at the US in general. > > I don't really want to get involved in this stupid discussion, so that'sall

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I'm going to say. > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 > >

Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need to get out of a recession. The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with people. Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river, this has nothing to do with Iraq.

Then from an Australian point of view. 1975. The CIA orchestrated the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. He was going to tell the yanks to share the info from their 16 spy bases in Australia, or get out. In 2000, it was released that the United States threatened to declare war on Australia in 1950. Why? We had a nuclear weapons program starting up. The ulitmatum was stop, or we delare war. Nice ally, eh!!!! Steve "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... > Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need toget

Quoted text (7 lines)

> out of a recession. > The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with > people. > > Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. > > 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah

as > dictator. > 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz ofGuatemala.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 200,000 civilians killed. > 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. > 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. > 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. > CIA gives them $3 billion. > 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans > die. > 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill > Iranians. > 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. > 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) > disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. > 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties > 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. > 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. > 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N.

estimates

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. > > Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river, this > has nothing to do with Iraq. > > >

>"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote >In 2000, it was released that the United States threatened to declare waron >Australia in 1950. Why? We had a nuclear weapons program starting up.The >ulitmatum was stop, or we delare war. Nice ally, eh!!!! I certainly hope nobody believes this, but obviously one person does. The nearest think I can think of that you're talking about is the story about an ex-ANSTO employee's wife that said that technicians assembled then disassembled an experimental nuclear weapon. Now that's really credible. Anyway, the story was proven baseless and the "wife" was never actually identified. There was a push for nuclear weapons discussions in Australia from World War II until the early 1970s, but no actual weapons were even designed. Then the strengthening of the military-nuclear alliance between Australia and the US effectively made Australia a nuclear weapons state 'by proxy' with Australia 'protected' by the US nuclear umbrella. In 1952, I'm quite sure, the British used the Monte Bello Islands (Australia) for nuclear weapons tests, and for atmospheric tests until 1956. They also tested in Ema Field and the Maralinga and Woomera Test Sites. To the best of my knowledge, Australia doesn't even have a nuclear power plant to this day. They are, or were, however, the largest exporter of enriched uranium. It's foolish to believe that the US would declare war on Australia but not England or France who were getting involved in nuclear weapons (and are closer to the US). In fact, thanks to a 1958 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act by President Eisenhower, the US and Britain started sharing nuclear weapon design information. By the way, this has nothing to do with Iraq, so I suppose you just wanted to let everyone know how much you hate the US. It must really bother you that in almost every war, skirmish or police action since WWI, Australia has been participating right there beside the US.

I hope everyone realizes that 90% of this is false or stretched. "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need to get out of a recession. The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with people. Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river, this has nothing to do with Iraq.

"GTX_SlotCar" > By the way, this has nothing to do with Iraq, so I suppose you just > wanted to let everyone know how much you hate the US. It must really > bother you that in almost every war, skirmish or police action since > WWI, Australia has been participating right there beside the US. > > And we 'ppreciate the fact yer there. as far as the many many child deaths in Iraq blamed on Bombing and sanctions. The goverment of Iraq has been given plenty of money in the last 10 years to see to the needs of it's people via the oil for food program. However the goverment of Iraq has chosen to defy the purpose of the Oil for FOOD program and use the funds to build hundreds of edifices of Saddam, to build literally a half-hundred castles/palaces/estate/country clubs...for ONE person. Surely the Bombs and warfare did kill people and even children...but the NEGLECT of the current regime for it's people places much of the blame NOT on the US, or the Sanctions themselves but on the Iraqi goverment's misuse of humanitarian aid for ego gratification and military expenditures. Nobody will be blameless when this is all over. The French, the Turks, the German's the Russians, the Belges have all contributed to the overall carnage by NOT enforcing the many UN resolutions they themselves voted for. The US will, unfortunately kill many innocents. But no country in modern times has SPENT as much money on attempting to prevent civilian casulties. No country in the History of the world as put as money into programs that , at least attempt, to minimize errant attacks as the USA has done for this conflict. It is the US and Britain and Coalition forces that are endangering their own troops in an attempt to limit civilian casulties. It is NOT the US that rounds up women and children and makes them weapons for a propaganda war. It is not the US that has electric wires running to meat hooks in Hospitals. We are not perfect, we are not saints. We kill and rape just like every other race/religion/country. But as long as ANTI US or ANTI Bush or ANTI anything focus ONLY on one side of an issue or one statistic, they do nothing to further improving the causes of those attrocities. You all can dredge up statistics that show what butchers the US is/are, I'm sure we could fill up pages of examples, but that is onesided and overlooks two important points. How many peoples lives would have been lost if the US took no action and what would the world be like without such actions. The Soviets became a power by killing millions of their own people. If left unchecked, how many more millions would have been killed in YOUR countries? When the US pulled out of Viet Nam, how long before Pol Pot next door in Cambodia began filling warehouses with millions of skeletons of his own people? When The US bombed IRAQ, killing those babies...how many men in Kuwait had already been arested tortured and killed by Iraqis? How many women were repeatedly raped by Iraqi soliers? How many Iraqi's themselves have been tortured? Killed? Abused? By their own goverment. Somebody once said: War is Hell. The alternative is often the same. dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "GTX_SlotCar" > > > By the way, this has nothing to do with Iraq, so I suppose you just > > wanted to let everyone know how much you hate the US. It must really > > bother you that in almost every war, skirmish or police action since > > WWI, Australia has been participating right there beside the US. > > > > > And we 'ppreciate the fact yer there. > > as far as the many many child deaths in Iraq blamed on Bombing and > sanctions. The goverment of Iraq has been given plenty of money in the > last 10 years to see to the needs of it's people via the oil for food > program. However the goverment of Iraq has chosen to defy the purpose of > the Oil for FOOD program and use the funds to build hundreds of edifices

of

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Saddam, to build literally a half-hundred castles/palaces/estate/country > clubs...for ONE person. Surely the Bombs and warfare did kill people and > even children...but the NEGLECT of the current regime for it's people > places much of the blame NOT on the US, or the Sanctions themselves but on > the Iraqi goverment's misuse of humanitarian aid for ego gratification and > military expenditures. > > Nobody will be blameless when this is all over. The French, the Turks, > the German's the Russians, the Belges have all contributed to the overall > carnage by NOT enforcing the many UN resolutions they themselves voted

for. > The US will, unfortunately kill many innocents. But no country in modern > times has SPENT as much money on attempting to prevent civilian casulties. > No country in the History of the world as put as money into programsthat > , at least attempt, to minimize errant attacks as the USA has done forthis > conflict. It is the US and Britain and Coalition forces that are > endangering their own troops in an attempt to limit civilian casulties.It > is NOT the US that rounds up women and children and makes them weapons for > a propaganda war. It is not the US that has electric wires running tomeat

Quoted text (9 lines)

> hooks in Hospitals. We are not perfect, we are not saints. We kill and > rape just like every other race/religion/country. But as long as ANTI US > or ANTI Bush or ANTI anything focus ONLY on one side of an issue or one > statistic, they do nothing to further improving the causes of those > attrocities. > You all can dredge up statistics that show what butchers the US is/are, > I'm sure we could fill up pages of examples, but that is onesided and > overlooks two important points. How many peoples lives would have been > lost if the US took no action and what would the world be like without

such > actions. The Soviets became a power by killing millions of their own > people. If left unchecked, how many more millions would have been killed > in YOUR countries? When the US pulled out of Viet Nam, how long beforePol

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Pot next door in Cambodia began filling warehouses with millions of > skeletons of his own people? > When The US bombed IRAQ, killing those babies...how many men in Kuwait had > already been arested tortured and killed by Iraqis? How many women were > repeatedly raped by Iraqi soliers? How many Iraqi's themselves have been > tortured? Killed? Abused? By their own goverment. > > Somebody once said: > War is Hell. > The alternative is often the same. > > dave henrie >

<yawn> That's right, the ENTIRE population of the world is wrong and now hates us for no reason, and a certain % of Americans (famous for not knowing shit about the world, and not caring that they don't know shit) are right. http://www.msnbc.com/news/893527.asp "We were thinking these Americans want us to be safe," Hassan, 35, said through a translator. Hassan, interviewed Tuesday by a Knight Ridder correspondent at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital near Najaf, said 11 members of his family were killed in the incident - his daughters, ages 2 and 5, his son, 3, his parents, two older brothers, their wives and two nieces, ages 12 and 15. His wife, Lamea, who is nine months pregnant, said she saw her children die. "I saw the heads of my two little girls come off," said Lamea Hassan, 36. "My girls - I watched their heads come off their bodies. My son is dead." The above apparently is called an "unfortunate incident". Wouldn't it be sad if the child killer Bush suffered the same "unfortunate incident" someday? I also don't want to hear anyone crying when the inevitable "unfortunate incident" occurs here in America and American civilians are killed. Our government will try and call it terorism but the truth is it's just war, and something we should expect and accept. Right? David G Fisher (waving his flag)

David G Fisher wrote: > I also don't want to hear anyone crying when the inevitable "unfortunate > incident" occurs here in America and American civilians are killed. Our > government will try and call it terorism but the truth is it's just war, and > something we should expect and accept. Right? Correct. We shouldn't whine & cry & threaten when we get retaliated against for our own atrocities. It's only the counterattack in the overall ongoing war. If it's OK for us to do, then it's OK for them as well. Unless we are a nation of hypocrites. Seen this yet? Even our "friends" have had enough of us: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=30719 [Source: April 2 London {Times}; April 1 British Television; EIR contacts] THERE ARE MULTIPLE INDICATIONS OF MASSIVE STRAINS ERUPTING BETWEEN BRITAIN AND THE U.S., at the way the American military is handling the war against Iraq. EIR's man in Glasgow, Alan Clayton, reports that British Channels 4 and 5 last night were filled with accusations and intimations against American military heavy-handedness, and the alleged contrast between such behavior, and the more "human" way the British military is behaving. Whether or not this involves some "special pleading" by the British side, the central polemic, is that the Americans "are losing the hearts and minds of the population." One figure interviewed, was Captain Bob Stewart, who had commanded British troops in Bosnia, and who has been critical of the Iraq war drive for months, saying that what the U.S. is doing, is "not the way to win the hearts and minds of the population." Today's London {Times} headlines, "Strains of War Test the Allies," writing, "Tensions between Britain and the U.S. over the conduct of the war, were growing last night, as British commanders voiced their dismay at American soldiers' heavy-handed tactics." These "strains burst into the open," after the latest incidents of U.S. military killing innocent Iraqi civilians. British government sources speak to the {Times}, of "hairline cracks in the relationship." The {Times} itemizes several other sources of tension, noting that "Britain has also been dismayed, by Donald Rumsfeld's threatening noises toward Iran and Syria." A well-informed Russian source confirmed to EIR, that there are now significant tensions between the American and British military, over the conduct of the Iraq war. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I hope everyone realizes that 90% of this is false or stretched. > >> "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... >> Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need to get >> out of a recession. >> The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with >> people. >> >> Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. >> >> 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as >> dictator.

<SNIP> That's real convincing there Slot. If it's so blatant & so obvious, why not dispute one by one & "enlighten" us? Looks to be a very accurate list, just not very complete. We done many more things worldwide. Which is the reason why we are so hated. People could care less how "free" we are, and the arguments that such "freedoms" are why we are so hated has always been laughable for their stupidity. These Iraquis don't care how free you are, they're mad because you killed off 2/3 of their family. You know if given the chance, some will look to give paybacks. In their place, wouldn't you? -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

ok 90% is false or stretched. which ones? rectify the mistakes. if you're going to make a statement that someones data is wrong, you better supply you own data or you statement is worthless. btw I'm not anti american. I'm anti-war. If the people supporting the war took the time to research and understand the political, religious and socio-economic issues of region, they would be against this war as well. terrorist of freedom fighter...both the same thing. just depends on your perspective. I'm not trying to get into a hate/slanging match. Just a bit of civilised debate, respecting each others point of view. Steve "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b6j1i4$5dbi7$[email hidden]... > I hope everyone realizes that 90% of this is false or stretched. > > "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... > Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need toget

Quoted text (7 lines)

> out of a recession. > The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with > people. > > Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. > > 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah

as > dictator. > 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz ofGuatemala.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 200,000 civilians killed. > 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. > 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. > 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. > CIA gives them $3 billion. > 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans > die. > 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill > Iranians. > 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. > 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) > disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. > 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties > 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. > 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. > 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N.

estimates

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. > > Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river, this > has nothing to do with Iraq. > > >

I agree that it is probably better to do something than nothing Dave, and I also agree with YaOK that we are not being told the real reason. I would have SO much more respect for politicans if they actually told us the real reasons they started this war, be it oil or whatever. I don't accept the WMD debate or even the "Liberating the people", or "breaking resolutions" reasons at all, otherwise why hasn't anything been done about N. Korea, or Palestine, who are by far bigger offenders than Iraq. Yes Saddam is evil, but he is not the only one. I don't think I have heard a believeable answer to these questions from any politician any time it has been brought up.

Same could have been said of Japan after WWII. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > I hope everyone realizes that 90% of this is false or stretched. > > > >> "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... > >> Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you needto get

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> out of a recession. > >> The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with > >> people. > >> > >> Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. > >> > >> 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs

Shah as

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >> dictator. > <SNIP> > > That's real convincing there Slot. If it's so blatant & so obvious, why > not dispute one by one & "enlighten" us? Looks to be a very accurate > list, just not very complete. We done many more things worldwide. > Which is the reason why we are so hated. People could care less how > "free" we are, and the arguments that such "freedoms" are why we are so > hated has always been laughable for their stupidity. These Iraquis > don't care how free you are, they're mad because you killed off 2/3 of > their family. You know if given the chance, some will look to give > paybacks. In their place, wouldn't you? > > > -- > > Fester > > Elevators smell different to midgets >

Why don't the people of the middle east look in the mirror first? There is not one trustworthy world class money center in the Middle East. Not our fault. WHERE has the billions of oil dollars gone over the past 30 years? Where did the ARAB leadership invest their proceeds? Definately not back into their homeland. Your side calls this a war over oil. Interesting FACT: At its maximum, IRAQ can produce roughtly 6 million barrels of oil per day. At 30 dollars a barrel that is only 5.4 billion dollars per month or roughly 65 billion dollars of revenue per year. As a comparison, WAL MART will generate almost 240 billion dollars of revenue per year. Is the war REALLY over the "control" of oil prices? What happens when/if IRAQ's oil wells are privatized? What happens to the power within OPEC? This WAR is much more about the FREEDOM of CAPITAL. There is not one middle eastern country today that has free access to capital for it's people. If you only had half a clue as to what generates wealth and peace (Freedom to access capital), you would understand why the end result in IRAQ could be extremely possitive. AND, understand why several of the other middle eastern countries (Actually their "leaders"), are afraid. They are worried what will happen to IRAQ after there is a trustworthy world class money center developed. They are afraid of privatized oil companies pumping oil and driving down their personal profits, and ultimately they are really afraid of legitimate and legal access for the IRAQ population to capital markets. "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e8d773e$0$12180$[email hidden]... > ok 90% is false or stretched. which ones? rectify the mistakes. ifyou're > going to make a statement that someones data is wrong, you better supplyyou > own data or you statement is worthless. > > btw I'm not anti american. I'm anti-war. If the people supporting thewar

Quoted text (27 lines)

> took the time to research and understand the political, religious and > socio-economic issues of region, they would be against this war as well. > > terrorist of freedom fighter...both the same thing. just depends on your > perspective. > > I'm not trying to get into a hate/slanging match. Just a bit of civilised > debate, respecting each others point of view. > > Steve > > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b6j1i4$5dbi7$[email hidden]... > > I hope everyone realizes that 90% of this is false or stretched. > > > > "Ya OK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:uoJia.13564$[email hidden]... > > Keep putting dictators into power then bomb there asses when you need to > get > > out of a recession. > > The war machine is profitable, don't kid yourself it has to do with > > people. > > > > Here is just a few examples. This is in no way an exhaustive list. > > > > 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs

Shah

Quoted text (7 lines)

> as > > dictator. > > 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of > Guatemala. > > 200,000 civilians killed. > > 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. > > 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast

Asia. > > 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to killSoviets. > > CIA gives them $3 billion. > > 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000Nicaraguans > > die. > > 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons tokill > > Iranians. > > 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. > > 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) > > disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removesNoriega.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties > > 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. > > 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. > > 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. > estimates > > 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. > > > > Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river,

this > > has nothing to do with Iraq. > > > > > > > >

Bill Bollinger wrote: > Same could have been said of Japan after WWII. True. Fortunately for the Americans who have been stationed there since, the Japanese are trained to be much more submissive. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

Bill Bollinger wrote: > Is the war REALLY over the "control" of oil prices? No sir it is not. Control a large enough percentage of worldwide oil supplies, you can control the economies of every country on the planet. I can see the phrase coming, "Do things OUR way or no oil for you." Poof. Economic collapse for whatever countries we don't like or don't agree with us. We won't be stopping with Iraq. :-( -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

Uhhhh, do you even realize that WALMART sells roughly 4 times as many goods each year than the ENTIRE oil production coming out of IRAQ? WALMART has a market cap of over 240 billion. IRAQ at its highest level of production will only produce roughly 60-65 billion in oil revenue each year. IRAQ's oil production as a percentage of worldwide production is very small. You also make the false assumption that technology will not provide future replacements/alternative for oil. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: > > > Is the war REALLY over the "control" of oil prices? > > > No sir it is not. Control a large enough percentage of worldwide oil > supplies, you can control the economies of every country on the planet. > I can see the phrase coming, "Do things OUR way or no oil for you." > Poof. Economic collapse for whatever countries we don't like or don't > agree with us. We won't be stopping with Iraq. :-( > > > -- > > Fester > > Elevators smell different to midgets >

Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Uhhhh, do you even realize that WALMART sells roughly 4 times as many goods > each year than the ENTIRE oil production coming out of IRAQ? > > WALMART has a market cap of over 240 billion. > > IRAQ at its highest level of production will only produce roughly 60-65 > billion in oil revenue each year. > > IRAQ's oil production as a percentage of worldwide production is very small. > > You also make the false assumption that technology will not provide future > replacements/alternative for oil.

Once again. It's not about IRAQ'S oil supply. It's about confiscating control over the vast majority of *worldwide* oil reserves. There is a pattern for those who have enough of an open mind to look. I'll try to put it in some kind of order, although it'll probably be clear as mud by the time I'm done with it. :-) ++++++++++++++++++++++ August of 1998: http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm UNOCAL announces that until there is political change in Afghanistan, it is suspending the project to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan thru Afghanistan to the ports in Pakistan. A government that is acceptable to the United States first has to be put in place before they will resume the project. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then we toppled the government of Afghanistan & installed one to our liking. Did you know that both their President Hamid Karzai and special Bush envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad are both ex-UNOCAL employees? Third & fourth paragraphs here are interesting: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA29Ag02.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For those who would say he was not installed by the US, an excerpt from http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0807.html: So the news that Hamid Karzai has been fitted with a battery of American bodyguards must give us pause. Why, one might ask, in this battle-hardened country brimming with warriors, in which Kalashnikovs outnumber men, should its head of state require this foreign guardianship? We have been told that Karzai received overwhelming support at the Loya Jirga in June. If that were the case, why can't he muster a trustworthy Afghan entourage? The fact is that Karzai, having been placed in power by the U.S. as next-best-thing to the late CIA operative Abdul Haq, has reason to fear his own people. His "political base remains weak," notes the Washington Post (August 5), and his "authority barely extends beyond Kabul." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then in December of 2002, it is announced that the pipeline is back on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Last spring, we attempt an overthrow of the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez. Take a wild stab at what they have in abundance there? OIL. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html The United States had been considering a coup to overthrow the elected Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, since last June, a former US intelligence officer claimed yesterday. It is also alleged that the US navy aided the abortive coup which took place in Venezuela on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean. Evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key participants in the coup. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then we have the windup to the present conflict. First all these "WMD's" etc. which could never be located. Demands that all sorts of unreasonable searches be carried out on the premises of a leader's residence. (Wonder how Dubya would like a mandatory search of his Texas ranch just because of somebody else's unfounded assertions.) Then as we are attempting to bully people into going along with this slaughter, a glimpse of things to come: http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=175548&n=20 3/12/2003 US threatens Russia over Iraq veto 4:26:00 PM Moscow, March 12 - Russia will suffer serious economic and geopolitical consequences if it vetoes a UN resolution authorising war against Iraq, the US ambassador to Moscow warned in a newspaper interview published on Wednesday. Alexander Vershbow told the Izvestia daily that Moscow could put at risk planned cooperation between the two countries in the energy sector, that would include massive US investment in the Russian oil industry. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We have also been talking about going after Iran (oil), are currently involved in the Phillipines (oil) and have speculated on regime change in Saudi Arabia (oil). But it's not about the oil. :-P -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

So basically you are using the same theory the USA used as the reason to try and stop communism in the 60's & 70's. If you let one country fall to communism, they all will fall to communism? I thought the anti-war movement back then said that strategy was flawed? Let's face the fact. The current ARAB leadership has stolen billions of dollars from the people of the middle east. When they were racking in billions over the past 50 years in oil revenue, why did then not invest the money back into their own countries? They are desperate to hold on to their power. They fear free access to capital for their people. Fact: OIL will continue to have less and less impact on worldwide economies over the next 20 years. Given that as a fact, the assumption that this is about *worldwide* control of the oil markets will be proven to be useless. You are just spewing the ARAB elite party line. This war is about the control of capital not oil. Go do research on a correlation between free access to capital markets, avg wealth, and quality of life. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bill Bollinger wrote: > > Uhhhh, do you even realize that WALMART sells roughly 4 times as manygoods

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > each year than the ENTIRE oil production coming out of IRAQ? > > > > WALMART has a market cap of over 240 billion. > > > > IRAQ at its highest level of production will only produce roughly 60-65 > > billion in oil revenue each year. > > > > IRAQ's oil production as a percentage of worldwide production is very

small. > > > > You also make the false assumption that technology will not providefuture

Quoted text (96 lines)

> > replacements/alternative for oil. > > > Once again. It's not about IRAQ'S oil supply. It's about confiscating > control over the vast majority of *worldwide* oil reserves. There is a > pattern for those who have enough of an open mind to look. I'll try to > put it in some kind of order, although it'll probably be clear as mud by > the time I'm done with it. :-) > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > August of 1998: > http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm > > UNOCAL announces that until there is political change in Afghanistan, it > is suspending the project to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan thru > Afghanistan to the ports in Pakistan. A government that is acceptable > to the United States first has to be put in place before they will > resume the project. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Then we toppled the government of Afghanistan & installed one to our > liking. Did you know that both their President Hamid Karzai and special > Bush envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad are both ex-UNOCAL > employees? Third & fourth paragraphs here are interesting: > http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA29Ag02.html > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > For those who would say he was not installed by the US, an excerpt from > http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0807.html: > So the news that Hamid Karzai has been fitted with a battery of > American bodyguards must give us pause. Why, one might ask, in this > battle-hardened country brimming with warriors, in which Kalashnikovs > outnumber men, should its head of state require this foreign guardianship? > > We have been told that Karzai received overwhelming support at the Loya > Jirga in June. If that were the case, why can't he muster a trustworthy > Afghan entourage? The fact is that Karzai, having been placed in power > by the U.S. as next-best-thing to the late CIA operative Abdul Haq, has > reason to fear his own people. His "political base remains weak," notes > the Washington Post (August 5), and his "authority barely extends beyond > Kabul." > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Then in December of 2002, it is announced that the pipeline is back on. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Last spring, we attempt an overthrow of the Venezuelan government of > Hugo Chavez. Take a wild stab at what they have in abundance there? OIL. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html > > The United States had been considering a coup to overthrow the elected > Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, since last June, a former US > intelligence officer claimed yesterday. > > It is also alleged that the US navy aided the abortive coup which took > place in Venezuela on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the > Caribbean. Evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key > participants in the coup. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Then we have the windup to the present conflict. First all these > "WMD's" etc. which could never be located. Demands that all sorts of > unreasonable searches be carried out on the premises of a leader's > residence. (Wonder how Dubya would like a mandatory search of his Texas > ranch just because of somebody else's unfounded assertions.) Then as we > are attempting to bully people into going along with this slaughter, a > glimpse of things to come: > http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=175548&n=20 > > 3/12/2003 > US threatens Russia over Iraq veto > 4:26:00 PM > Moscow, March 12 - Russia will suffer serious economic and geopolitical > consequences if it vetoes a UN resolution authorising war against Iraq, > the US ambassador to Moscow warned in a newspaper interview published on > Wednesday. > > Alexander Vershbow told the Izvestia daily that Moscow could put at risk > planned cooperation between the two countries in the energy sector, that > would include massive US investment in the Russian oil industry. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > We have also been talking about going after Iran (oil), are currently > involved in the Phillipines (oil) and have speculated on regime change > in Saudi Arabia (oil). > > But it's not about the oil. :-P > > > -- > > Fester > > Elevators smell different to midgets >

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: > > > Is the war REALLY over the "control" of oil prices? > > > No sir it is not. Control a large enough percentage of worldwide oil > supplies, you can control the economies of every country on the planet. > I can see the phrase coming, "Do things OUR way or no oil for you." > Poof. Economic collapse for whatever countries we don't like or don't > agree with us. We won't be stopping with Iraq. :-( >

Gotta love this mindset. Dave

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote > > That's real convincing there Slot. If it's so blatant & so obvious, why > not dispute one by one & "enlighten" us? Looks to be a very accurate > list, ... Because it was getting late (look at the time stamp) and also because it wouldn't make a difference or change anyone's mind. It boggles me to see what people will believe, without question. The idea here is to bash the US. It's done with lies, exaggerations and innuendo. In many of the items you could substitute, for example, France for US. It never says UN, just US. It's all in the way you say things. My wife's father hasn't worked for years. He hangs around the house most of the time, but he doesn't mind having fun fishing or hunting when they're in season. Every month he collects his check from the government. Money, by the way, that you and I are paying for. What do you think about a guy like this? Oh, did I mention that he's 80 and retired? Does it make a difference in what you think about him? Everything I said was true, I just left out one little thing. OK, I'm an old guy so I remember a lot of this stuff, and some of it I participated in. Here goes: >>1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. >>U.S. installs Shah as dictator. It was a UN venture and we backed the Shah, we didn't install him. >>1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President >>Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. Civilians were killed, but it was at the hand of Arbenz. Although elections were held, he was not democratically elected. If you didn't vote for him, you were killed or tortured. I was young then but remember it because my father was sent there (on business, he was a knitting machine mechanic) while it was going on. >>1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. Sorry, never heard of this one, but I won't call it a lie. I can't imagine why we'd want to get rid of him and help him at the same time. Does anyone know the reason for this if it's true? >>1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. Actual estimates are about 10,000. It was not just US military, but a UN venture. To say otherwise doesn't do justice to the Australian, British, French, Korean and other country's young men who died there. I don't know the number of lives lost from the 1850s to 1954 when Viet Nam was a colony of France. They had several generations of resistance. The first was in the 1800s but it quickly failed. The Japanese victory over the Russian empire in 1904 proved that an Asian country could defeat a western power, and stimulated the second generation of Vietnamese resistance. Most of the fighting was guerrilla type warfare in each case, which consisted of each village fighting for freedom against French tyranny. In this type of situation, it's hard to say which Vietnamese were soldiers or civilians, so I suppose it's possible that you could make the case that millions of civilians died. If a civilian fights soldiers, is he still a civilian? The 3rd generation was in the 1920s and in 1954 the Vietnamese finally defeated the French and the Geneva Peace Accords were signed. >>1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists >>to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. They weren't terrorists then. We trained them as we train our own military and they were effective in stopping the spread of communism. >>1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". >>30,000 Nicaraguans die. Had we done something sooner, some of those lives might have been saved, but I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say. >>1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein >>for weapons to kill Iranians. He was fighting the Shah of Iran who was openly hostile and threatening the US, so why not give him a little aid. We sold him weapons and loaned him money (as did other countries). All were supposed to be paid for and it was about one billion dollars. Unlike the French and Russians, who have sold Hussein weapons for the past 12 years, it was not against international law back in the 80s. >>1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) >>disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. >>3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties Noriega was a CIA informant, not an agent. He didn't take orders from Washington, but we did ask him, in his capacity as President of Panama, to cease his involvement with pushing drugs into the US. We went after him like we'd go after any other drug lord, but obviously we didn't have his consent. As I recall, most Panamanians didn't cry when he was gone. By the way, according to the Australian Peace Committee, it was 1400 civilians, not 3000. >>1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. This is a prime example of "stretched". With weapons supplied from the US in the 80s, but also with weapons from Russia, France, China & several other countries. What's the point you're trying to make? Iraq invades Kuwait and it's somehow our fault, and solely our fault? Are you saying we forced Iraq to invade Kuwait? >>1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. It was the UN troops who entered Iraq. The President of Kuwait (you don't call Saddam the dictator of Iraq, do you?), I suppose you can say he was reinstated, but in effect he just resumed his office. In 4 or 5 cases above, you complain because we supposedly took someone out of office, and now you complain because we leave someone in. I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. >>1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N.estimates >>500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. Wow, those UN inspectors must have been jumping for cover. We flew spy planes over Iraq every week, not bombers, and it was part of Saddam's surrender terms. Anyone watching the news must know that we certainly didn't bomb them every week for the past 12 years. Come on, that's just plain stupid. I don't know how many children died, but bombs or sanctions didn't kill them. Billions of dollars were sent for humanitarian aid. Saddam spent it on 50 new palaces. He doesn't care about the children. We (and other countries) also tried sending medical supplies and food, but what Saddam couldn't use for himself or his inner circle was destroyed. He wanted his people to suffer so he could get sympathy from the world community. >>Open you fuckin EYES, your goverment is selling you down the river, this >>has nothing to do with Iraq. My eyes are open. Lies, innuendo and exaggerations like this are selling us down the river. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

DAVID J ROBINSON wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Bill Bollinger wrote: >> >> >>>Is the war REALLY over the "control" of oil prices? >> >> >>No sir it is not. Control a large enough percentage of worldwide oil >>supplies, you can control the economies of every country on the planet. >> I can see the phrase coming, "Do things OUR way or no oil for you." >>Poof. Economic collapse for whatever countries we don't like or don't >>agree with us. We won't be stopping with Iraq. :-( >> > > Gotta love this mindset. > > Dave

Maybe. But 2 points here. 1-watch where we go after Iraq (oil nations) because we are not done, and 2-we already started threatening nations with withholding oil for not supporting us. If you think it will get any better as we get control of more oil, you are far more trusting than I am. -- Fester Elevators smell different to midgets

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Maybe. But 2 points here. 1-watch where we go after Iraq (oil nations) > because we are not done, and 2-we already started threatening nations > with withholding oil for not supporting us. If you think it will get > any better as we get control of more oil, you are far more trusting than > I am. > > -- > > Fester

First off I do not think we are going after him for the oil. If that was so then why not stay in the Americas and take over Venezula( SP). Much easier country to come in and occupy, less weapons and less of a standing army then Iraq. Also in a much more controllable area of the world then the Middle East. Second when World War II and the the Gulf War of 91 did we occupy and run the countries we freed? Finally if we were really just after the oil why worry so much about the citizens of Iraq. We would be carpet bombing any area not a refinery or oil field or oil transport depot. We would just go in a mow down everyone since we just want the oil. It would be easier on the troops and cost less US lives in that process. I could be all wrong here,m but I doubt it. Dave