GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:39 PM
 Edited By: GOZR on 24 Feb 2003 16:51
Freedom?
Interesting...
I just been censored ,
here it goes a sample why..
The whole story-like most others of its kind--was false. It provided three consecutive days of propaganda against Iraq to prepare the population for war, but it was based on hype.
The IAEA stated on Sept. 8 that the satellite imagery did not prove anything. There was no report and "no new information about Iraqi nuclear activity," according to Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesperson for the agency. Gwozdecky told the Washington Post that the "confusion" was caused by a quote from a single nuclear inspector, which had been used as the basis for the New York Times story two days earlier.
While Iraq has never possessed nuclear weapons, the Pentagon currently has about 6,000 nuclear warheads. It has spent more than $6 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1942 and is the only country to have used atomic bombs, which it did against the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945.
While Japan's other cities had been massively bombed with conventional weapons before those dates, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been spared by the U.S. Air Force so that the later impact of nuclear weapons could be cleanly evaluated. More than 200,000 civilians were incinerated or died from radiation poisoning.
While ranting against an Iraqi "nuclear threat," Bush and company would actually like to overcome what they consider an ill-advised taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. The "why build 'em if we can't use 'em" nuclear mentality has finally been codified with a new military doctrine that takes the U.S. a giant step forward toward the use of nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon, under the Bush administration, has developed a new military doctrine under the title Nuclear Policy Review. Released in early 2002, it allows for the first use of nuclear weapons against several countries, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, Russia and others. (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOZR
Expert Class
Le Motard Fou
Posts: 261
posted February 24, 2003 03:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lance Corporal Anonymous (Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA)
The United States has become an octopus. Its tentacles far reaching and strangling any opposition to the "American way of life".
This war has no people's interests in mind. It has corporation's interests in mind. And it is sad to see my fellows so willing to shout "let's roll" on such a thin premise. To think that a man would be willing to die so that an oil company can tighten its grip on supply. To think that they will never see their wives because a mad man in Washington needs a war to prove he is "tough". To think children will never be able to see their fathers or mothers because they didn't realize that they were fighting an unjust war.
I don't understand why my brothers in arms can't see this; Why can't they see the inequalities in the feudal system we call the "military"? Why can't they see that they probably won't be the one who comes home to tell stories? Do they think that the carnage of wars in the past is somehow gone? Why don't they see that the guy on the other side is just like me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOZR
Expert Class
Le Motard Fou
Posts: 261
posted February 24, 2003 03:16 PM Edited By: GOZR on 24 Feb 2003 15:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INEVITABILITY OF WAR
[Col. Writ. 9/28/02]
It is impossible for us to read a newspaper, watch a newscast, or listen to radio without receiving the undeniable message that war with Iraq is inevitable.
Why is this so?
Why, in a nation that claims to be a democracy, is it inevitable, almost unquestionable, beyond the realm of questioning, that war against a sovereign nation is virtually, a done deal?
Where are the voices of dissent? ... of divergent opinion?
If this be a democracy, it is a democracy of fear; fear stimulated and exploited by political leaders in Washington, D.C., and underwritten by the shameless cheerleading of the corporate media.
Iraq, we are told, is a rogue government, and its leader, Saddam Hussein, is a new-age Hitler. It seems like every time the government wants to demonize someone, they call him a "Hitler." It always works, doesn't it? It doesn't matter that the U.S. government was quite friendly to Hussein and the Ba'ath regime when they were at war with their neighbor, Iran.
Let's think a little about the real Hitler, and the Nazi regime during war time.
During World War II, when millions of Americans, British and the French lived in dread of the Nazi's, do you know that a number of American firms traded with the enemy? Companies like the Chase Bank, Ford, International Telephone, and Standard Oil?
The Hitler tank divisions were built by Adam-Opel and Ford of Cologne, wholly owned subsidiaries of General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. Speaking of Ford, did you know that Hitler awarded the Nazi's highest civilian honor, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, to American automaker, Henry Ford?
Charles Higham in his 1984 book, "Trading With the Enemy" (Dell) writes:
Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan ...? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with the authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? ... Or that ITT built the Focke-Wulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them?
Let's be clear -- many American corporations got rich when Hitler's war machine was raging. They didn't care about Hitler then, nor about so-called "Hitlers" now. It's about oil, the money it brings, and the power it unleashes.
Don't let war be inevitable; fight the corporate lies.
  
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:40 PM
Got censored !
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:42 PM
Freedom of speach!
Easy to blash into the french so what happened to my posts..?
Afraid of the reality? afraid of the news from out side the US?
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:43 PM
Better to ban me !!
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:48 PM
Edited By: GOZR on 24 Feb 2003 16:35
The Bush administration is confronted with a problem as it prepares to attack Iraq. At the moment, the U.S. government appears to the world in a distinctly "American" image from a scene repeated in countless stereotypical Hollywood movies: the frightful rampage of drunken gunslingers who shoot up the town in a Saturday night frenzy--just because they can.
That their sneering, swaggering and threatening foreign policy actually mirrors the physical pose struck by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld when they appear on television or in front of crowds only reinforces the conclusion of the rest of the world-that this is indeed a dangerous regime. A rogue state, if you will.
Now, as they make the case that a U.S. war against Iraq is only a "pre-emptive defense" rather than an unprovoked and thus lawless aggression, no one around the world believes them.
With a straight face they tell the world that Iraq is the major threat to world peace and that its government must be destroyed by military action. Because the administration lacks even the slimmest credible pretext for attacking Iraq, it has launched a media hype about Saddam Hussein's supposed stepped-up efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
The rulers of the largest nuclear power in the world, along with their pliant sidekick from Britain, appear every day now before the world media to howl about Iraq's nuclear threat. It is all lies--incredible lies. The truth is a casualty in the publicity war that precedes the actual war.
On Sept. 6 and 7, the major U.S. dailies put "new evidence of Iraq's nuclear threat" on their front pages. It started with a prominent New York Times story reporting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had released satellite photos showing new, significant activity at "nuclear sites" in Iraq. "UN Spy Photos Show New Building at Iraqi Nuclear Sites," said the headline.
Pundits on CNN and the Fox network then talked for the next 48 hours about this new, "clear proof" that the Bush team had been right about Iraq's nuclear intentions. "We can't wait for the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud," stated Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security advisor, in a dramatic interview on CNN on Sept. 8. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke virtually the same words in this calibrated media offensive. "Waiting [to attack Iraq] is not an option," Cheney somberly concluded, and called on listeners to imagine that "they" had used nuclear weapons on Sept. 11: "It wouldn't be 3,000 dead but tens of thousands dead."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair used the report to justify his pro-Bush position before a dubious public. He told the British press on Sept. 7, "We need only look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at a former nuclear site," to justify British support for Bush's war. "A policy of inaction is not something we can responsibly subscribe to," he warned.
But the whole story-like most others of its kind--was false. It provided three consecutive days of propaganda against Iraq to prepare the population for war, but it was based on hype.
The IAEA stated on Sept. 8 that the satellite imagery did not prove anything. There was no report and "no new information about Iraqi nuclear activity," according to Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesperson for the agency. Gwozdecky told the Washington Post that the "confusion" was caused by a quote from a single nuclear inspector, which had been used as the basis for the New York Times story two days earlier.
While Iraq has never possessed nuclear weapons, the Pentagon currently has about 6,000 nuclear warheads. It has spent more than $6 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1942 and is the only country to have used atomic bombs, which it did against the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945.
While Japan's other cities had been massively bombed with conventional weapons before those dates, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been spared by the U.S. Air Force so that the later impact of nuclear weapons could be cleanly evaluated. More than 200,000 civilians were incinerated or died from radiation poisoning.
While ranting against an Iraqi "nuclear threat," Bush and company would actually like to overcome what they consider an ill-advised taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. The "why build 'em if we can't use 'em" nuclear mentality has finally been codified with a new military doctrine that takes the U.S. a giant step forward toward the use of nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon, under the Bush administration, has developed a new military doctrine under the title Nuclear Policy Review. Released in early 2002, it allows for the first use of nuclear weapons against several countries, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, Russia and others. (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)
WEAPONS INSPECTORS: THE PRETEXT FOR WAR TAKES SHAPE
The Bush strategy to get support, or more likely the acquiescence, of other governments for the planned U.S. aggression will likely revolve around the issue of Iraq's willingness or lack of willingness to allow UN weapons inspectors to hunt for "weapons of mass destruction."
Bush doesn't really give a hoot about weapons inspectors, because neither he nor any of the U.S. officials is actually worried about Iraq's military capability.
The Bush team will craft a new "coercive inspections" proposal that will be such a flagrant violation of Iraq's sovereignty and so militarily dangerous that Iraq will not be able to accept it. Then Iraq can be labeled intransigent, obstructionist and unwilling to "cooperate with the United Nations"--so that the Pentagon can begin the air war and invasion.
Bush and the media will thus assert that the U.S. went the extra mile to prevent war. It went to the UN first to seek one last chance at resolution. When the war comes it will be presented as Iraq's failure to comply with the UN, rather than as a unilateral act of aggression by imperialism against a small, oil-rich Third World nation.
The war will be to "protect American people from nuclear terror" rather than the re-conquest of a country that had earlier dared to nationalize Western oil installations. Iraq possesses 10 percent of the world's oil supply and was first placed on the "terrorist nations" list in 1972 when it took over the Western oil monopolies which had gotten rich from the plunder of its natural resources.
COERCIVE INSPECTIONS: WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING
Making Iraq an offer that it would have to refuse was laid out in a document circulated recently by the so-called Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It is a prescription for war rather than peace.
The plan, which is referred to in the media as "muscular inspections," amounts to demanding that Iraq voluntarily allow the U.S. invasion force into the country under the name of an Inspections Implementation Force (IIF), or some similar name.
"The IIF must be highly mobile, composed principally of air and armored cavalry units. It might include an armored cavalry regiment or equivalent on the Jordan-Iraq border, an air-mobile brigade in eastern Turkey, and two or more brigades and corps-sized infrastructure based in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Air support including fighter and fighter- bomber aircraft and continuous air and ground surveillance, provided by AWACS and JSTARS, will be required," writes Jessica Matthews, president of the Carnegie Endowment.
That this is a prescription for war rather than negotiations is evident. It has the advantage, though, of making Iraq appear to be in non-compliance and therefore subject to all- out war at any moment.
"The inspection teams would return to Iraq accompanied by a military arm strong enough to force immediate entry into any site at any time with complete security for the inspection team. No terms would be negotiated regarding the dates, duration, or modalities of inspection. If Iraq chose not to accept, or established a record of noncompliance, the U.S. regime-change option or, better, a UN authorization of 'use of all necessary means' would come into play."
Bush knows that Iraq's acceptance of this inspections model or a variant of the model is unlikely if not impossible. If Iraq allows weapons inspections like this, it would signify that the country from then on would be under the control of the military forces of a foreign power that seeks its destruction.
Between 1991 and 1998, Iraq was subjected to more than 9,000 weapons inspections. According to Scott Ritter, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, the country has been largely disarmed for many years.
Iraq is in a hobbled state as a result of economic sanctions that have been imposed on it for more than a decade. Its economy was wrecked, its industrial infrastructure degraded. Where clean drinking water was guaranteed before 1991, people today get sick and die from drinking contaminated water. The destruction of water plants and aqueducts by aerial bombing and the refusal to allow Iraq to import spare parts and decontaminants was part of an intentional and integrated U.S. strategy to destroy the water system. (Thomas Nagy, The Progressive, September 2001)
The people of the United States must take action now to prevent the next war on Iraq. It is part and parcel of the long-standing struggle between imperialist domination and all those-the majority of the world's people-who seek to be free from colonialism and neocolonialism so that they can determine their own destiny.
The writer is a co-director of the International Action Center and a spokesperson for the ANSWER coalition. He was on a five-member delegation, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, that just visited Iraq.
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:16 PM
Edited By: Zhooligan on 24 Feb 2003 19:53
What do you mean what happened to your posts?
Gozr I understand your desire to not go to war. What I don't get is when you have two extremely good examples in the world right now to look at. Iraq is trying desperately to get weapons of destruction. They have some but they don't appear to have a nuclear weapon and especially one they can deliver via ICBM. On the other hand North Korea via technology given and sold to them have this capacity now.
The situation with Korea is extremely tense and requires a tremendous amount of diplomacy and frankly paying of blackmail. They have the power and we along with many countries must figure out how to deal with them. And we will and are going to pay a high price as a result. As nuts as the North Koreans are they are really motivated by food, and local political desires.
Iraq on the other hand at this moment we don't have to kiss their tails or pay blackmail. Nor has Saddam actually demonstrated a reluctance to use such a weapon, not only on us but his own people. Nor given the chance would he hesitate to destroy the entire Middle Eastern Supply of oil with such a bomb given the chance.
Now to people like yourself you look at this and say, "see its all about the oil, it's all about the greed!" That is not the case at all. It is about feeding billions of people in this world, it is about putting clothes on their backs, heat in their homes etc. It is about keeping the world stable. Do you honestly believe that the world would be better off if we just let Saddam contimue on the path of obtaining Nukes? You don't think it is a responsible thing for World Powers to disarm the nut cases?
While the USA, Britian, France and Germany are not choir boys it certainly would appear that at the very least they have been pretty vigilant in trying to slow down nuclear proliferation. Do you have any idea how much money and black ops have occurred in controlling the break up of the Soviet Union. Again not perfect but a hell of a lot better then had we all stood idly by. You talk of profit from war. People profit from peace, prosperity, feast, famine, love, hate, greed, charity, war etc. There is a dark and light side to everything.
It always comes down to the basic question, pay now or pay later. You can fight a war with/against a country with limited resources, non nuclear, and less then the best biological and chemical weapons now. Or wait until he is really set up and ready. The decission should be obvious.
All of this French bashing has been somewhat of a joke. History speaks for itself. And frankly I get tired of being blamed for the treaties signed with the Indians a hundred plus years ago, for slavery that ended after a great deal of bloodshed in a civil war fought almost 140 years ago. I am tired of listening about the would of and could ofs. But what I can't forget is that my Grandfather died on Normandy Beach and is buried in France having given his life in a war he believed in. Nor can I forget the names and the more importantly the faces of my friends and comrades whose names are engraved on the Wall. And when you talk about America and Freedom it is clear that you don't get it. My grandfather, my friends, and soldiers in arms died trying to bring freedom to the very country they died in. We Americans certainly don't own the ideal or the word Freedom itself, but we can certainly define it's meaning and it's cost
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:20 PM
Yes in the french bashing is gone!
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:23 PM
Censored where? HERE? On THIS forum? To the best of my knowledge, there is five folks that can edit/delete a post on THIS forum.
Mad Dog
fish-antlers
princess kiwi
frEEk
redelk
I have not seen or read the posts in question. Are these posts above the ones your talking about? Were they part of a thread with other posts? I would find it hard to believe fish, princess or frEEk deleting them if the above posts were all there was to the thread. Hell, fish (and possibly the princess too) share somewhat similar beliefs as you do about the possible war in Iraq. From what I understand, frEEk is kinda MOR (Middle Of the ROAD) on that issue. Mad Dog RARELY EVER deletes or edits posts.
That would leave me. Now even though you and I might have thoughts and beliefs that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum about Iraq, I do and always will welcome RATIONAL opposing viewpoints on political and social issues. I would NOT edit or remove such posts, even if they were derogatory towards me personally.
So, that brings the question of what was the name of this thread you were censored on? Is it possible that someone else, besides yourself, that might have written a post to this thread containing language that could possibly warrant editing, locking out or removing the whole thread? Again, I, as forum moderator, have not personally taken such an action. This is not to say that someone didn't post a reply to your posts that was so inflammatory or threatening that for legal reasons, the administrators were forced to remove the thread. They do not have to inform moderators if they take such an action on any particular forum.
If you made such posts and they are no longer on the forum in their original location, I can assure you that it wasn't because of the content or you being the author. That's not the way we work around here. I would have to believe that it was someone else's post or posts that would warrant such action. If it was such a serious threat against you or others here, it would have been quickly removed and little or nothing would be said of it.
BTW, you would not have to worry about me banning anyone. ONLY administrators can do that. NOT moderators.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:26 PM
Edited By: redelk on 24 Feb 2003 16:28
I just read which thread you were referring to. I did not even get a chance to open that thread since I had little interest in it and have been busy this last weekend, playing with my new sand blasting cabinet and haven't visit this site much during that time.
I can not help but think, since the whole thread is gone, it was NOT your posts, but that of someone else who too it "over the line".
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
12RPilot
Pro
Posts: 1094
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:26 PM
GOZR, I'm sorry that France has so much to lose financially when Saddam is destroyed. Even more tragic is the hateful words being posted lately. Remember when we were all ZX-12 brothers?
____________
If you aren't an AMA member, you're part of the problem.
NESBA #209
http://www.bikepics.com/members/12rpilot/04zx10r/
 
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:30 PM
Edited By: GOZR on 24 Feb 2003 16:46
I agreed that opposite thought are definitly realy important on a balance in the world..
I also condamded Saddam's action or all terroriste actions that is not on questions but just the fact of the medias involvement in putting fake news to the peoples .
I am for justice, faireness and news telling the facts like they are .
Like the French say and beleive is
Liberty, Egality, fraternity this is where i stand , we must all stand for those ideals.
We are all Humans.... on ZX12 R 
|
freek
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:33 PM
i dont knwo where the thread went. can't find any trace of it. i didnt delete it, & can say with certainty maddog didnt either. i agree with redelk that fish or princess_kiwi probablywouldnt either. i'm mystified.
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:37 PM
It doesn't matter just remember for our sake..
Liberty, Egality, fraternity
I 'll die for it and i'll never bend my knees .
|
GOZR
Zone Head
GOZR
Posts: 716
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:38 PM
It doesn't matter just remember for our sake..
Liberty, Egality, fraternity
I 'll die for it and i'll never bend my knees .
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted February 24, 2003 04:39 PM
I can then only assume that some idiot posted some REALLY HATEFUL and THREATENING SHIT that left fish no choice but to delete it.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted February 24, 2003 05:55 PM
ZH brother you said it all!!! I could not agree more!
Mad Mike
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted February 24, 2003 08:02 PM
hrmmm
i guess i'll re-post this
LAST CHANCE?
Don't you just love all those people who are talking about George Bush and his "rush to war" in Iraq.
James Taranto had some interesting headlines in his "Best of the Web" Wall Street Journal Online column yesterday (link below). Here are some headlines about Saddam's "last chance." Look at the dates.
"Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998
"Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998
"Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998
"The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002
"Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003
Now .. what's this "rush to war" nonsense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on to other issues
nuclear weapons were indeed used by the usa on hiroshima and nagasaki.
that is a fact, that will remain to this day *for some* a deterrant from ever having one used again. A military strike would have done nothing in that case to mitigate or shorten the war. the resolve of hte Japanese was such that nothing short of what happened would convince them to pause ion their aggression. and no, this was not an act of USA aggression, as the usa was diplomatically pursuing peace when the country was attacked.
the japanese were in this case the aggressors. they were the ones on the imperial bent. they were out wreaking hitleresque havoc on the asian landmass. these also are INDISPUTABLE facts.
there is no pride, no honor in the strikes done with nuclear weapons, and if you review the things said and done about that time period, you will see it was not a gleeful "OH GOODY LET'S DROP SOME NUKES!!!" that some would have you believe. and no pride was taken with those strikes either. all that mattered was ending the war before it DID return to the Japanese coast. Because at this point, there would no longer be any semblance of a peaceful end. every man, woman and child would have fought to the death, for this was the resolve. because this was what their government taught them for ages. you can say 200000 people died in nagasaki and hiroshima, and that is tragic. but how many died before that, and would have died after that?
there is no way you can put price to human life. impossible
in today's world, there is also an aggressor, who has killed many many people. he has invaded others, and has claimed that he should be the head of a united arab nation, with the capital in bahgdad. all of this is also factual history.
he has gassed his own people. he houses them above his military installations, then calls them hospitals afterwards. he has one loyalty, and that is to himself.
you can draw parallels to the folks in charge today. our government has a very aggresive indoctrination program, seated in the teaching of children that the government is there to provide and is to be implicitly trusted,a nd inidividuals and individuality is to be condemned. the indoctrination starts the seeds of socialism at early age, and by the time they grow up, it isn't that bad a deal no?
while a particularly jaded view of the actions of this and the last administration could lead you to think it is all about oil or whatnot, (though what clinton would be worried about oil for his fortunes were real estate *ooops* did i say that???) the main thing at work here has nothing to do with iraq, or oil, or anything else for that matter
i think the top thing at work here is ENVY. those who don't hate those that do. it is 'human nature' or some such bollucks.
close behind is a healthy dose of POWER.
this gets tricky though. our way of life in america and canada is very laid back, a lot of freedom, INDIVIDUAL freedom. we don't care if you are white, black, catholic, muslim, blind, or old or young. people as individuals matter here (subject to change, re: patriot act II) and are held in a high regard. and people as individuals here are amazingly tolerant when compared to other places in the world. (try being catholic in a muslim nation....saudi aranbia for example will execute you. food for thought...)
as such our way of life is tolerant of differences. (again as general rule, most people are not arian nation/KKK members) this is a threat to places where individuality is frowned on.
for 2 reasons. 1. because it exists, and appears to flourish, is a blow to the basis of their thoughts, and 2. if the people get the wild ambition to be free, THEIR power base is gone.
as such, the USA, Britain, Canada are examples of individual freedom, and successful at that. this holds a certain power by existing. the power to give those people who don't have it, HOPE. i dare say there are VERY few people who want their children to grow up persecuted, hunted, enslaved, murdered. they want their children to succeed and be happy.
now we get to the UN, which is a group of people who hold power themselves. it isn't real power, as their power is derived from the fighting forces of a very few nations. most of it from the us military. butit IS perceived power. the problem is all these pesky sovereign nations. especially the big ones. or the prominent ones (like us, uk, china)
all of this infighting in the un is overall to me a ruse, a means to an end. everyone knows hussein has NO intention of disarming, he has said it himself. even when confronted RECENTLY with missiles that exceeed the disarmament treaty, he said no he won't destroy them.
yet, noone cares....but the big bullies the usa and uk (dutch sending troops/machinery too) aren't playing nciely, and are just trying to fluff their chests and beat someone up.
this ploy is being used to undermine and negate the power the usa and allies have. this is an attempt to disarm the powerof individual freedom, and to enlarge the power held by those few in the UN. a step towards a 'world government' and a centralized 'committee' of nations to redistribute the wealth the evil USA is hoarding from the rest of the world.
perhaps i am being paranoid....who knows. but there is no other logical explanation for the opposition now, when it was abundantly clear in 1998 that this SAME body considered hussein to be on his last chance. 5 years ago... 'last chance'
what, pray tell, does this tell you about the authority of the UN?
what does this tell saddam hussein, or any other 2-bit dictator that gets a wild hair?
if you can enlighten me to how this can all be good in the end with hussein still in power, please, let us know. but if it is about pleas to hussein to disarm, let barbara streisand and brad pitt and all the rest of hollywood morons do the talking. he has been told since 1992 to disarm, the same UN now is saying let him go....
they are worse than the league of nations....
 
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC