ArKLyte wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:35:39 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >ArKLyte wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:42:31 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >> You don't know much about international politics and diplomacy,
    > >> >> do you Viktor.
    > >> >
    > >> >I suspect it's Dumbya who doesn't know much about "international
    > >> >politics and diplomacy"! (At least he's not exhibited much grasp of
    > >> >either, so far.)
    > >>
    > >> So a *unanimous* U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein
    > >> isn't a diplomatic victory?
    > >
    > >When did this take place? If it's the resolution others have been
    > >talking about, it happened long before the shrub took over from daddy.
    >
    > You don't know much, do you, ma'am.
    >
    > U.N. Resolution 1441, which instructs Saddam to 'disarm
    > or face serious consequences' was passed in December 2002
    > U N A N I M O U S L Y.
    >
    > I think it's time for you to turn on your TV or read a newspaper.
    > You haven't a single, solitary clue about what's going on.
    >
    > You're busted, bitch.

Hey, It's actually much worse than that - for real.
Resolution 1441 is only re-iterating that Saddam Hussein live up to the
codicils of the cease fire Agreements from 1991.
Yep...from 1991.
Read a bit about the Weapons Inspectors from Richard Butlers time.
He was just another entourage of UN weapons Inspectors led a merry dance
by Hussein.

    >
    > ================================================== ============
    > "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
    > because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
    > - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:46:35 +1100, Rob McCulloch wrote:

    >ArKLyte wrote:
    >>
    >> On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:35:39 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    >> >> So a *unanimous* U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein
    >> >> isn't a diplomatic victory?
    >> >
    >> >When did this take place? If it's the resolution others have been
    >> >talking about, it happened long before the shrub took over from daddy.
    >>
    >> You don't know much, do you, ma'am.
    >>
    >> U.N. Resolution 1441, which instructs Saddam to 'disarm
    >> or face serious consequences' was passed in December 2002
    >> U N A N I M O U S L Y.
    >>
    >> I think it's time for you to turn on your TV or read a newspaper.
    >> You haven't a single, solitary clue about what's going on.
    >>
    >> You're busted, bitch.
    >Hey, It's actually much worse than that - for real.
    >Resolution 1441 is only re-iterating that Saddam Hussein live up to the
    >codicils of the cease fire Agreements from 1991.
    >Yep...from 1991.
    >Read a bit about the Weapons Inspectors from Richard Butlers time.
    >He was just another entourage of UN weapons Inspectors led a merry dance
    >by Hussein.

Yep..

Here's some interesting stuuf, as well:

Does this sound like anyone you know?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/.../clinton.iraq/

EXCERPT:

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:
February 17, 1998

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would
argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the
past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new
era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower
confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for
more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take
for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the
barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked
in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know
very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a
result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of
terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.
They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They
actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information
and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build
arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles
to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of
his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this
crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national
interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the
world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the
United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations
demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is
way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration.
That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained
international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good
on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq
disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not
once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical
weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign
adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia,
Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of
the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade
trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the
facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had
left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then
uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would
simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within
just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He
revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and
the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in
significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam
Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen
to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare
capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;
2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157
aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually
greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to
his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them,
disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the
back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the
front door. And our people were there observing it and had the
pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable
job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have
uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than
was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000
gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30
warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and
a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce
anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to
rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken
yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring
key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I
might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by
comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites
reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the
White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C.
That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres.
We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal
matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole
history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of
his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to
deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of
chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type
missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program
and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is
against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made
clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the
face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.
The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized
people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic
way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end
of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days
within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can
find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the
remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear,
immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these
sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or
diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has
put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he
agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times
since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will
not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations
through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be
to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do
within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused
to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done
against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of
this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining
sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the
inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM
has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And
that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail
to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction
and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to
ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I
think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of
time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf,
and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture
would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have
agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the
United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the
Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina,
Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in
Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but
because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations
resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM
has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can
imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his
capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our
military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our
vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons
of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him
significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to
threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a
will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we
will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our
disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we
will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies
fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion.
Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many
more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden
around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction
of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of
Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more
difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in
the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest
decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into
harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes,
it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force
in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the
option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to
protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we
may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be
ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen
that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance.
Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a
threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck
hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in
Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our
troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened
our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons
inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every
conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out
effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to
finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting
the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn
commitment to the international community to do that and to give up
his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the
other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th
century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this
century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to
aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when
necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more
the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of
mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us
unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in
his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the
United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of
mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear
message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international
community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect
peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to
imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one
together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a
diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to
do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/.../clinton.iraq/

================================================== ============
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

Go Fig wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" wrote:
    > > Go Fig wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article ,
    > > > Desmond Coughlan wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > le Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:49:54 GMT, dans l'article
    > > > > , ArKLyte
    > > a
    > > > > dit ...
    > > > >
    > > > > >>That's indeed sad. If the average American voted like the average
San
    > > > > >>Franciscan, the USA and the world would be a much better place.
    > > > >
    > > > > > No. If we did, the U.S. would be totally bankrupted financially
and
    > > > > > morally.
    > > > >
    > > > > What, you mean you're not already ?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > The U.S., is not selling Mirage spare parts to the butcher as late as
    > > > January 2003.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Got a cite for that?
    > http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-3-2003_pg4_4

Ppfffffffffffbwaahahhaaaaa...

"WASHINGTON:A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its
fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months,
according to US intelligence officials."

Hmmm... a Pakistani newspaper... based on those oh-so-reliable intelligence
officials...

Here is the official line Go Fig, educate yourself:


Q: There's a report out today -- there's a report out today that
France has been providing Iraq with military parts. Can you comment on
that? And then broadly on whether you think that France's financial
interests in Iraq are playing some kind of role in their position?

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, there are sanctions that would limit and
restrict any nation's ability to do that. I have not seen such a
report. And from the President's point of view, the nations that he is
working with are acting in principle. And that's how he treats it.

    > >
    > > > The question that WILL be answered is if this is just a rogue French
    > > > company selling the parts or the French Government itself... as so
much
    > > > of French military factories are state owned.
    > > >
    > > > Sanctions for France may be required....
    > > >
    > >
    > > Sure, make certain you get UN approval for them...
    > Actually, existing resolutions have prescribed penalties.

Except that is could all be anti-French propaganda. Just because you and
your government want to believe it, does not make it true.
---
DFM

In article ,
"Deep Floyd Mars" wrote:

    >
    > Except that is could all be anti-French propaganda. Just because you and
    > your government want to believe it, does not make it true.
    > ---
    > DFM

What type of military jets/helicopters does Iraq use ?

Do you think they might need spare parts ?

Who could sell these parts to Iraq ?

jay
Sat, Mar 8, 2003
mailto:[email protected]

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Deep Floyd Mars wrote:
    >
    > Go Fig wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article ,
    > > Desmond Coughlan wrote:
    > >
    > > > le Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:49:54 GMT, dans l'article
    > > > , ArKLyte
    > a
    > > > dit ...
    > > >
    > > > >>That's indeed sad. If the average American voted like the average San
    > > > >>Franciscan, the USA and the world would be a much better place.
    > > >
    > > > > No. If we did, the U.S. would be totally bankrupted financially and
    > > > > morally.
    > > >
    > > > What, you mean you're not already ?
    > >
    > >
    > > The U.S., is not selling Mirage spare parts to the butcher as late as
    > > January 2003.
    > >
    >
    > Got a cite for that?
    >
    > > The question that WILL be answered is if this is just a rogue French
    > > company selling the parts or the French Government itself... as so much
    > > of French military factories are state owned.
    > >
    > > Sanctions for France may be required....
    > >
    >
    > Sure, make certain you get UN approval for them...
    > ---
    > DFM

At least they're reliable.
Always there when they need us!

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 22:37:13 +0000, Marie Lewis wrote:

    > In article , Hatunen
    > writes
    >>In any case, America is a quite secular nation despite some obvious
    >>pointing with alarm. Far more so than it was, say, when I was a
    >>student in the 1940s and the Lord's Prayer was part of our morning
    >>ritual.
    >
    >
    > Americans, however, seem to me, to be far more involved in religious
    > organisations than Europeans.

Americans tend to be far more religious. The percentage of people
attending some church/mosque/synagogue/temple on a regular basis is quite
staggering. Some of these are downright crazy.

Which leads to these issues such as teaching "creationism" at public
schools. Looking from outside, some of these things look quite
unbelievable. But they are real.

OTOH, freedom of religion in America often comes across as freedom to choose
some religion. But there is still lots of uneasiness on extending this to
include freedom "from" religion. Denying god is surely sacrilege, the
work of the devil, right. Very suspicious.

The recent business about the pledge of allegiance highlights this quite
nicely. Surely, from a legal standpoint, that California court got it
right. However, this is hugely unpopular, comes across as offensive to
most.

Creates a huge problem for the supreme court. These guys must know what's
right. But will they have the guts to do the right thing when maybe 80%
of the people stand on the other side of the issue?

ArKLyte wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 06:32:30 GMT, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    >
    > >Your reading comprehension seems a bit lacking, too! "slipping further
    > >and further DOWN" neas that GWB is losing what popularity he had.
    > >(That's more cause for rejoicing than fear!)
    >
    > Why should anyone care what you think?

What I "think" was not the point in question. Your inability to
comprehend the meaning of the phrase "slipping further down" was a
demonstrable fact, visible to all. (All but you, apparently.)

    >
    > You didn't know that UN resolution 1441 was passed unanimously
    > in December and that the masterful diplomacy of Powell and Bush
    > made that a reality. You refused to respond when I busted you for that.

"Refused"? I probably didn't read it - your posts ARE tediously
repetitive, you know - only you consider them deathless prose. As to
"busted" I've no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't aware I'd
been arrested, nor that you were a policeman. "Busted" is American
slang for "arrested", it is also an ungrammatical form of "broken" -
neither of which applies. (You really should invest in a dictionary,
you know!)

Perhaps you will enlighten the rest of us about this "masterful
diplomacy" you claim for Powell and Bush. Powell has been a great
diappointment to many of us who were previously wishing HE would run for
president - I doubt anyone of normal intelligence would apply the term
"masterful" to his recent actions. ("Expedient" in terms of internal
U.S. politics, perhaps, but "masterful"?) Bush obviously doesn't even
know the meaning of the WORD "diplomacy" (like you, he should invest in
a dictionary.)

    >
    > You're intellectually dishonest toast, lady.

Well, at least I POSSESS an intellect to be "dishonest" with!

Marie Lewis wrote:
    >
    > In article , Hatunen
    > writes
    > >In any case, America is a quite secular nation despite some obvious
    > >pointing with alarm. Far more so than it was, say, when I was a
    > >student in the 1940s and the Lord's Prayer was part of our morning
    > >ritual.
    >
    > Americans, however, seem to me, to be far more involved in religious
    > organisations than Europeans.

I thin the more appropriate term for many of them might be "obsessed".
(Alas!)


    > --
    > Marie Lewis

devil wrote:
    >
    >
    > The recent business about the pledge of allegiance highlights this quite
    > nicely. Surely, from a legal standpoint, that California court got it
    > right. However, this is hugely unpopular, comes across as offensive to
    > most.

What makes all that particularly ludicrous is that originally, and until
long after I left school, it was simply "One nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all." - no "under God" involved! (Which, IMO
destroys the scansion of what is, essentially, a piece of blank verse.)
So what has caused all the hysteria is something that wasn't even IN the
original pledge - why should it not be restored to its original form
again?


    >
    > Creates a huge problem for the supreme court. These guys must know what's
    > right. But will they have the guts to do the right thing when maybe 80%
    > of the people stand on the other side of the issue?
    >

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > ArKLyte wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 06:32:30 GMT, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
    > >

    > >
    > > You're intellectually dishonest toast, lady.
    > Well, at least I POSSESS an intellect to be "dishonest" with!

Good one!

Alex

ArKLyte schrieb:
    >
    > On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:35:39 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >ArKLyte wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:42:31 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >> You don't know much about international politics and diplomacy,
    > >> >> do you Viktor.
    > >> >
    > >> >I suspect it's Dumbya who doesn't know much about "international
    > >> >politics and diplomacy"! (At least he's not exhibited much grasp of
    > >> >either, so far.)
    > >>
    > >> So a *unanimous* U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein
    > >> isn't a diplomatic victory?
    > >
    > >When did this take place? If it's the resolution others have been
    > >talking about, it happened long before the shrub took over from daddy.
    >
    > You don't know much, do you, ma'am.
    >
    > U.N. Resolution 1441, which instructs Saddam to 'disarm
    > or face serious consequences' was passed in December 2002
    > U N A N I M O U S L Y.
    >
    > I think it's time for you to turn on your TV or read a newspaper.
    > You haven't a single, solitary clue about what's going on.
    >
    > You're busted, bitch.


I do not think you will find anyone in this RTE group (and I am removing
your tedious
crossposts at this point) that disagrees with resolution 1441. What I do
disagree with are the following points.
Firstly, America's bullying of UN member states with threats of economic
repercussions
if they dare to not toe the line. I suggest you might have a look at the
UN Charter
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ to see if it says anything about
members with veto
rights being entitled to bully everyone else.

Secondly, threatening to bomb Iraq with more tonnage in one day than was
dropped Germany
in the whole of WWII is horrendous.
Bombing in WWII responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
civilians.
The bombing of Baghdad in the Gulf war killed thousands of civilians,
quite
about from the unfortunate Iraqi troops who had zero chance. Do you call
that a war?
Can you really be proud of all this? Do you like the idea of your son
getting a medal
for dropping bombs on women and children?
It is rather frightening and sickening to read statements of the kind we
have seen
in this group like "the only good Iraqi is a dead one". The transition
of Saddam Husein
as the bogeyman who must be destroyed into the image a whole nation-
men, women and
children- as worthless jetsam to be destroyed is a necessary
prerequisite for the
media acceptance of the oncoming slaughter, and epitomises exactly the
callousness and
monstrosity of the thinking behind the US government's position which
is rejected by the majority of Europeans.

Thankyou for reading this, and dear ArkLyte, should you deign to reply,
be so good as to
be more courteous in future.

Tom
    >
    > ================================================== ============
    > "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
    > because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
    > - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

In article , tandp
wrote:

    > ArKLyte schrieb:
    > >
    > > On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:35:39 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >ArKLyte wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:42:31 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > > >> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> >> You don't know much about international politics and diplomacy,
    > > >> >> do you Viktor.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >I suspect it's Dumbya who doesn't know much about "international
    > > >> >politics and diplomacy"! (At least he's not exhibited much grasp of
    > > >> >either, so far.)
    > > >>
    > > >> So a *unanimous* U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein
    > > >> isn't a diplomatic victory?
    > > >
    > > >When did this take place? If it's the resolution others have been
    > > >talking about, it happened long before the shrub took over from daddy.
    > >
    > > You don't know much, do you, ma'am.
    > >
    > > U.N. Resolution 1441, which instructs Saddam to 'disarm
    > > or face serious consequences' was passed in December 2002
    > > U N A N I M O U S L Y.
    > >
    > > I think it's time for you to turn on your TV or read a newspaper.
    > > You haven't a single, solitary clue about what's going on.
    > >
    > > You're busted, bitch.
    >
    >
    > I do not think you will find anyone in this RTE group (and I am removing
    > your tedious
    > crossposts at this point) that disagrees with resolution 1441. What I do
    > disagree with are the following points.
    > Firstly, America's bullying of UN member states with threats of economic
    > repercussions
    > if they dare to not toe the line.


What ? You do think that all the players in this aren't doing the
same... Chirac has threatened E. Europe countries with EU admission.

Do you think EU admission might have an economic impact on those
countries ?

Moreover, since the sanctions it is Germany that has been shown to be
violating these... so much so that to cover themselves they convicted a
citizen of Treason.

Germany, is the ONLY critical country that predetermined its response
months and months ago... before a single report from the UN inspectors
was in.... shameful.

jay
Sat, Mar 8, 2003
mailto:[email protected]




I suggest you might have a look at the
    > UN Charter
    > http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ to see if it says anything about
    > members with veto
    > rights being entitled to bully everyone else.
    >
    > Secondly, threatening to bomb Iraq with more tonnage in one day than was
    > dropped Germany
    > in the whole of WWII is horrendous.
    > Bombing in WWII responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
    > civilians.
    > The bombing of Baghdad in the Gulf war killed thousands of civilians,
    > quite
    > about from the unfortunate Iraqi troops who had zero chance. Do you call
    > that a war?
    > Can you really be proud of all this? Do you like the idea of your son
    > getting a medal
    > for dropping bombs on women and children?
    > It is rather frightening and sickening to read statements of the kind we
    > have seen
    > in this group like "the only good Iraqi is a dead one". The transition
    > of Saddam Husein
    > as the bogeyman who must be destroyed into the image a whole nation-
    > men, women and
    > children- as worthless jetsam to be destroyed is a necessary
    > prerequisite for the
    > media acceptance of the oncoming slaughter, and epitomises exactly the
    > callousness and
    > monstrosity of the thinking behind the US government's position which
    > is rejected by the majority of Europeans.
    >
    > Thankyou for reading this, and dear ArkLyte, should you deign to reply,
    > be so good as to
    > be more courteous in future.
    >
    > Tom
    > >
    > > ================================================== ============
    > > "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
    > > because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
    > > - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Perhaps you will enlighten the rest of us about this "masterful
    > diplomacy" you claim for Powell and Bush. Powell has been a great
    > diappointment to many of us who were previously wishing HE would run for
    > president - I doubt anyone of normal intelligence would apply the term
    > "masterful" to his recent actions. ("Expedient" in terms of internal
    > U.S. politics, perhaps, but "masterful"?) Bush obviously doesn't even
    > know the meaning of the WORD "diplomacy" (like you, he should invest in
    > a dictionary.)

I'd like to know what changed his mind about Iraq. I'm not sure that
"expedient" is right - he wasn't much more enthusiastic about the job than
he was originally about invading Iraq. He's never seemed overly political
before this.

I don't have any preconceived ideas about what happened, it just genuinely
puzzles me. I wish I knew.

    > OTOH, freedom of religion in America often comes across as freedom
    > to choose some religion. But there is still lots of uneasiness on
extending
    > this to include freedom "from" religion. Denying god is surely sacrilege,
    > the work of the devil, right. Very suspicious.

First let me admit that I am not a religious person. That said .....
Do you realize what freedom "from" religion implies? It means that
people must be free from any mention of religion. This is silly. That
is what the atheists want, to have no mention of religion whatsoever
in public. But this means that religious people can not speak a word
of religion in public. I think this is obviously wrong. The solution is
to allow religious expressions as long as it does not involve public
money or mandated involvement by non-believers. If you do not
believe, then just do something else for the time, like read a book.
Many of us do not accept someone else's views on a subject, but
we do not have the right to tell that person to keep absolutely quiet.
Think about it.

Viktor

"pablo" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Perhaps you will enlighten the rest of us about this "masterful
    > > diplomacy" you claim for Powell and Bush. Powell has been a great
    > > diappointment to many of us who were previously wishing HE would run for
    > > president - I doubt anyone of normal intelligence would apply the term
    > > "masterful" to his recent actions. ("Expedient" in terms of internal
    > > U.S. politics, perhaps, but "masterful"?) Bush obviously doesn't even
    > > know the meaning of the WORD "diplomacy" (like you, he should invest in
    > > a dictionary.)
    > I'd like to know what changed his mind about Iraq. I'm not sure that
    > "expedient" is right - he wasn't much more enthusiastic about the job than
    > he was originally about invading Iraq. He's never seemed overly political
    > before this.
    > I don't have any preconceived ideas about what happened, it just genuinely
    > puzzles me. I wish I knew.
    > It truly makes me wonder if someone on the Hawk side did not blackmail him
or bought him somehow. Powell used to strike me as a man of integrity, but
he has definitely changed.

Alex