Hi Ricsi,
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 04:07 am, Richard Menedetter wrote:
> If the UN (or another world wide organization) would have investigated, and
> found millions of people murdered by the regime, they should have tried to
> put an end to it than.
>
> But this all is _NOT_ the case in iraq.
Aha, as if Saddam have not used gases against Kurds and Iranians,
as if he did not invade Kuwait! Still not enough?
> VL> With your arguments, you're advocating ignorance (besides empty
> VL> rhethoric) to the _very_ last moment, when it's too late already.
> No I'm not.
> But Saddam is the closest supervised Dictator ever.
> There are many spy satellites supervising iraq.
> there are insepctors in the country.
> There are american planes over most of the northern and southern terretory.
That's what, makes him (Saddam) a Santa?
> WHAT RIGHT has america to invade another country on its own ??
The same right Saddam had to invade Kuwait, at least.
> VL> Precisely as it was with Hitler. Shouldn't europeans learn the lesson
> VL> of their own past?
> you can't compare Hitler to Saddam.
> This would make the cruelties of Hitler really, really small ...
> Hitler was much, much worse.
And this should mean that Saddam is much much better, shouldn't it? ;)
> VL> Because just destruction does not assure anything. Destroyed weapons
> VL> could be built again.
> yeah sure ...
> so what ??
> kill the population of the whole world ??
> No more mass destruction weapons ... I guarantee.
You are transgressing the semantics here. Everyone has to have
a right to have a weapons for defence. Only those proven to use
it for assault and crime should be deprived of this right. Same way
convicted criminals normally denied a license for weapon.
Saddam proved himself criminal enough to be dangerous, and,
as a consequence to be denied of this right. So, or he has to go,
or to disarm. Period.
> How would you like it if you got killed after birth ??
> with the argument that you could kill somebody later.
> No evidence given ... nothing.
I'm sorry, this is just a socialist-liberal blubber, that pressing emotions,
but with no merit or sense.
> VL> First, existing UN resolution says enough to be considered a mandate.
> according to bush no.
> Because he wanted another one, and now says that he can make war without an
> UN mandate.
> If he would have one we could hear the bombs falling right now.
This, again, is an emotional but empty statement.
> VL> For example, not islamic countries, nor russians are interested in oil
> VL> prices decline, same way as US interested in exactly the opposite. And
> VL> so should be you, as an european, BTW.
> I'm not interested in the oil prize.
> I'm interested in fair play.
The problem here is, that you're talking about the guys and affairs, where
there's no place for the fair play. You cannot win playing by the book against
an opponent who does not. Look, who you are advocating for, this guys will
call for the fair play when they are loosing the game, but sure they will spit
on the rules should the situation change.
For anyone to excercise a right, there is a requirement to respect this
right of the others. Thus, proven murderer has no right to live, for example.
And, IMHO, such an approach is the only fair one.
> Attacking somebody of having something without any evidence is not OK.
> Hans Blix said that the "evidence" by Powell does not show anything.
> It could have been anything the US showed.
If he'd say, he checked every single lead provided by Powell, I'd say
he did his job. Otherwise such a statement is the same way baseless and
empty. If not indicating bribery or political pressure if you wish.
> This doesn't mean that they don't have mass destruction weapons (like many,
> many other countries).
See above. Unlike many other countries, Iraq with Saddam does not have
a right to have such weapons.
>
> VL> Have you ever heard the term "preemptive strike"?
> Yes ... and it is the BIGGEST BULLSHIT I have ever heared.
Think of it as you wish, but it is a legitimate military strategy to
cope with an enemy. Like, if I get an information that someone
planning something against me, or my family, I will never wait
for a plan to became a reality. Same thing there.
> This is kill all the potential killers (babs born in the world)
And this is a real bullshit. Again, pressing emotions, portraying
killers and war criminals as innocent babies, all from the well
known arsenal of brainwashing and public opinion manipulation.
Mind you, it's all based on the assumption, that you are nothing
more, than a mindless jerk, and being appealed to emotions, you'll
lose all ability to an independent analysis, but will run and fight for
"an innocent babies", no matter what the real thing is.
> YOU ARE INNOCENT AS LONG AS YOU PROVEN GUILTY.
This guy (Saddam) did enough to be guilty. Would you say
otherwise?
> This is the most basic notion of all law in Europe, maybe this is not the
> case in the US.
This last statement has nothing to do with the discussed topic.
Invent a name for it's usage here yourself please.
> VL> Saddam already proven to be an agressor, why should we wait for more?
> so has the US. US financially supported Iraq, Iran, Al quaida and others ...
And again, this is a good example of the results of application of
brainwashing techniques. Should we make a textbook for the future dictators
on your example? ;) No, I belive, it's done already with a lot of such a
material.
Here, the method of disorientation and brainwashing is noncredible mixing of
true known facts and lies in order for the people like you to think, that it's
all is credible information.
- First of all, whoever US supports financially, does not make US an
aggressor.
- Second, if you'll check serious historical documents, and not a
propagandistic lies you are operating with, I doubt you'll find any example
of US invading any country unprovoked and with a goal to annex it. That's
what makes an aggressor and that's exactly what Saddam did with Kuwait.
- Third, yes, US supported Iraq and Iran, as it does support many others.
But I doubt that Iraq, for one, enjoyed much of US support after Kuwait.
Now, about Al-Kaeda, that is a pure freaking lie, and this is exactly the
mixing I'm talking about.
> VL> Wait a bit. There will be thir turn also. FIFO.
> Oh ... so America has switched to FIFO.
> When are they attacking Austria ??
Oh, naturally, as soon, as Austria will poison slovaks with V-gas, and
occupy Romania ;)))
> You have to understand that America is a country like Holland, Austria,
> Somalia Iraq or any other.
I think it is you, who has to understand that it's not. Maybe like Holland
and Austria, only stronger, but definitely totally unlike Iraq and Somalia.
Here again you make an example of brainwashing of yourself with the method
described just above.
I will ignore the following one, excuse me. That's the same substitution
thing. Find please yourself where it is as an excersize, ok?
> They don't have the right to randomly attack other countries they don't
> like.
> If they have evidence that international law is broken, than the world
> (with the lead of the biggest military nation US) should take
> countermeasures. troops, bombs, war ...
===========
> VL> And there is a connection. He (Bush) said it right after Sep.11, that
> VL> every party involved will be punished. And here he does.
> Bush can say many things.
> This doesn't make these things right.
No, it's just explains why Iraq or Saddam first :)
> What if Bush accuses me of being a terrorist participating in sept. 11th.
> He sends troops to Austria (without any permit from austrian government)
> and kills me ... no evidence given ... nothing.
That's wrong example. I deem it was made wrong intentionally, as it allows you
to use austrian government, probably trying to pose UN as a world government,
which it is not. See below please.
> Was this right ??
> Hey sure ... Bush said I'm a Terrorist ...
The right example would be: If you and I are the leaders of villages, and you
are supporting thieves in the woods, who've done harm to me, and the king, or
whoever else is the autority, is reluctant to take action against you, because
there's no solid proof of your support (sure thing, how else), I will take an
action myself. And rightfully so.
> Correct behaviour:
> present evidence of my being a terrorist.
> And get the whole world to chase me.
Aha, in the next life. Because the whole world does not give a sh*t about
you being a terrorist and has his own carrots to tender.
> >> The question is how far do you go, and how correct are your thoughts
> >> about the threat.
> VL> As far, as it is necessary to reach the goal,
> But what if the colleteral damage would be MUCH higher than the goal ?
So what?
If Iraqis worry about collateral damage, they shall oust Saddam themselves.
If they are in agreement with his course, then they are the same way subject
to an action as he is.
> VL> And it's always better to overestimate the threat, than underestimate
> Not if extreme measures are caused by the extreme overestimation of the
> threat.
Nothing extreme happened yet. And if iraqis wont go to war to protect Saddam,
nothing whill. See, they shouldn't even oust him, just not to support him. But
if they go to war, then they become an enemy with all the consequences.
See my paragraph above.
> VL> You in Europe done that once.
> America has done it often.
It does not make Europe better, nor America worse.
> Al Quaida fought with american weapons against america.
How this is relevant? Or will you conclude from the fact, that Taliban used
Russian arms, that Russians supported Taliban?
> Saddam Hussein has many american weapons lying araound.
So what?
> Given to him freely
> by the american government.
Before he did what he did. Everyone is strong by backthought.
> VL> I wish your government would respect yours the same way.
> <personal remark>
> I'm really highly happy to live here and not in the US.
> really, really happy.
> </remark>
Relax & be happy, nobody calls you to the US, nor wants you there :)
> In my country this was once long ago the case.
> Hitler thought that we need more land ... and he invaded "some countries"
> to make more land available.
>
> A clear case where the goal (more land for germany) was "less important"
> than the collateral damage.
The hell with "collateral damage" there. Hitler was an aggressor and a
murderer, because he exactly invaded these countries with the goal to annex
their territory and to murder their original population. But if you will try
to place a sign of equality between Hitler, and the allies (as you are
undoubtedly instructed, or, at least, brainwashed by your islamic friends),
who invaded Germany in order to remove Hitler and his regime, then you will
be terribly wrong. And, while the damage to the countries, invaded by Hitler,
counts, nobody gives a sh*t about a damage to Germany itself. And, again,
rightfully so. Same thing about Iraq.
Cheers,
Vitaly.
