Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
At 20:58 20-09-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: Well, I haven't exactly been dictated to. I, after all, ignored the advice of my parents and decided to continue serving my country. So, have you signed up for military service yet? I mean, you want to serve your country, and are enthusiastically promoting war against Iraq, so joining the military and requesting to be sent to the Middle East seems like the most logical thing for you to do. Once you get sent there, will you be allowed to e-mail us about your experiences there, or will we have to wait till you return home from the front? Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:22 AM Subject: Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must Last I heard (sometime last week), the Iraqi government was willing to let weapons inspectors back in (albeit with certain not entirely unreasonable restrictions). The US (after first demanding just that) responded with more warmongering talk. This is news I have heard recently: The Iraqis at first offered unconditional access for inspectors, and then the next day started applying conditions. Medical facilities where one might expect biowarfare research is offlimits to inspectors. Palaces, which used to be military bases are now off limits to inspectors. Makes you wonder whether news agencies are reporting news or making news. xponent Need To Look For Some Sources Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
Do you really believe that when those Soviet troops were sent to the US, the Soviets did NOT send a couple of KGB officers with them? Of course everyone thinks they sent KGB officers. The difference is that the US had the legal right to keep Soviet troops out of military bases; it could legally avoid handing them documents. On the other hand, the Iraqis were supposed to permit the inspectors to go `anywhere, anytime': to go into any room, to read any document, no matter whether it was in a vault or was an Iraqi secret. In other words, the US could legally prevent the Soviet troops from acting as detectives (and the Soviets could do the same with the US troops in Siberia). The Iraqi government agreed to permit international disarmament inspectors to act as detectives. That is the difference. Note that the Soviet Union signed a biological warfare treaty in the early 1970s under which inspectors were forbidden legally to act as detectives. It turned out later that the Soviet Union violated that treaty, but the inspectors were unable to find that out. (There is evidence that, among other things, the Soviet Union weaponized small pox. It is known for sure that it produced lots of weaponized anthrax.) It is because of this history, as well as the history of inspections in Iraq, that the Bush administration desires to be careful. It does not want to be fooled yet again. It intends to prevent inspections as it did before, by requiring several hours air traffic notification for helicopter travel, and by `respecting rooms in Presidential palaces'. That does not sound all that unreasonable. Certainly those Soviet troops in the US were not exactly allowed to go everywhere either. It is unreasonable, since the locations and projects undertaken by the Iraqi government are unknown. In the past, the Iraqi government first claimed it was not building calutrons, and then when they were found, admitted it had been lying. Similarly, it has used delays to spirit documents away from inspectors. The US/Soviet deal was based on the principle that each did know well enough what the other was doing so that limited inspections would work. Remember, the US government did not find out for many years that it was wrong to think that limited inspections would work: it took a long time for the political leaders in the US to come to realize that the Soviets did violate the biological weapons treaty. Also, the US found after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Soviets had manufactured and deployed far more nuclear weapons than even the most pessimistic, right wing, anti-communists in the US thought, which was more than the middle of the road or left wing people in the US thought. People such as Rumsfeld and Cheney are very aware that they were fooled earlier; they know that in their younger days, they were stupid suckers. These experiences are influencing their decisions now. Last I heard (sometime last week), the Iraqi government was willing to let weapons inspectors back in (albeit with certain not entirely unreasonable restrictions). You have been fooled by the way the Iraqis focus on a part of their statement, not all of it. I read the Iraqi government statement (in a BBC translation). According to the statement, the Iraqi government was not going to let inspectors back in, except with unreasonable restrictions that would prevent them from disarming Iraq and proving to the rest of the world that Iraq was disarmed. Obviously, European governments want to go along with any excuse the Iraqi government can build up: they fear that European countries will lose more economically in a Middle Eastern war than the US. Also, of course, for years, west European countries lived next door to a tyranny that broke the biological disarmament treaty it had signed, deceived them and others about this, had nuclear weapons, and threatened to use its various weapons. Iraq is not frightening to them in the way that it has resurrected the fears that people in the US had of the Soviet Union. In addition, the European governments are much less `moral' than many Americans; it is clear that they do not support the UN, except as a talking shop. I think this is rather foolish of them, since support for the UN gives them more power against a raging US. But evidentally, the fear of the economic consequences of a Middle Easter war is worse than the fear of a powerful US. I am somewhat puzzled by the Bush administrations remarks in favor of the UN. However, while Bush's supporters mostly don't care about the UN, and indeed are against it, it is possible that enough members of the Bush administration actually do think that some of the things his domestic opponents have said are in fact right -- and that support for an effective UN is a good idea. In any event, from Bush's point of view, support for the UN cannot hurt him much, since such support steals thunder from his domestic
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
John D. Giorgis wrote: BTW - another very important difference is that the PRC and DPRK already *have* nuclear weapons.Moreover, the DPRK is capable of nuking Japan and Alaska, whereas China has made pointed reminders of their ability to nuke Los Angeles in the past. Now, given the choice of attacking one madman at first, which madman do you choose, the one with nukes? or the one without?As for Pakistan, which country do you attack, the one with the madman trying to get nukes, or the one with the despot who happens to be handing over really, really, important Al Qaeda fugitives to us, who, by the way, also happens to have nukes? I never meant to suggest that the US should attack the PRC or DPRK, I only meant to show why a lot of people regard Bush's stated motives with suspicion. I've already said I don't think Saddam's regime should be allowed to make fools of the UN and the US and their allies indefinitely, and I hope he can be stopped before he has the ability to deliver a WMD. But the beating up of the this man is the ultimate threat to our way of life type stuff coming out of some parts of the administration is just lame. As for Pakistan, the current regime is an ally in the war on terror, but a change of regime in Pakistan seems more and more likely as the months go by. What then? No-one can possibly know, but it does seem scarier to me than Saddam in Iraq who might develop WMD, and then might deploy them... He just seems to be smart enough to equate use of WMD against the US with a massive and total retaliation. I'm not so sure about those stirring up trouble in Pakistan. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone If We Must
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Tarek Aziz (sp?) asked Bush if it was ok to invade Kuwait, and Bush said go ahead. Or so it seemed. Reagan also betrayed Galtieri, when he asked if it was ok to invade the Falklands/Malvinas. I'm always fascinated by these kinds of approaches to the US. Indonesia did the same thing when they wanted to invade Irian Jaya, and was told to go ahead, so long as US mines in Irian Jaya were not nationalised. Why would the US government ever say yes to this sort of thing. I can just imagine the Australian govt asking permission to invade New Zealand and the US saying OK. (How else are we going to send all the Kiwis home, they won't leave by themselves!) Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
No. There is a point. Killing lots of people because they are enemies of the regime is state terrorism. It qualifies as simple mass murder. Killing lots of people, or even forcibly displacing them, because they are Bosnians or Croats, not Serbs is at best ethnic cleansing and at worst genocide. This (clearly) rises to the level of a Crime Against Humanity. Saddam Hussein's regieme has committed massacres against Kurds and Shi'i Arabs in the South. To the best of my knowledge these do not seemed to be part of a program of ethnic depopulation. Thus, no crime of ethic cleansing or genocide _per se_. However, the government does face a strategic problem with southern marshland. My several-year-old best knowledge was that it planned to drain the southern swamps. This will directly eliminate the life-way of rural southern Shi'i groups called Marsh Arabs. This will eliminate an ancient way of life; thus, it constitutes ethnocide. However, the economic and military arguments for getting rid of the marshlands are substantial. Any Iraqi regime might adopt a similar policy. On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:44 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 09:23 PM 9/19/2002 -0700 Doug wrote: Could someone point me in the direction of an article that details how Hussein is presently pursuing a policy of genocide similar to that pursued by Milosevic? Two questions: 1) Do you consider US actions against Milosevic to have been justified? 2) Do you support the US having made said actions against Milosevic? Thanks. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] As self-declared defender of democracy, the US should definitely invade Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which it might very well use against India -- which happens to be one of the largest democracies in the world. A democracy that has over 5 political prisoners, has ethnically cleansed over 250,000 christians, over 260,000 sikhs, over 70,000 muslims, among others, disappeared people, forces people to vote, has used use chemical weapons on it's own people (much like iraq), among the many things this 'fascist like' democracy has done. And yes I will eventually stop being lazy and finish my reply to that ko person. Up to 240k. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A democracy that has over 5 political prisoners, has ethnically cleansed over 250,000 christians, over 260,000 sikhs, over 70,000 muslims, among others, disappeared people, forces people to vote, has used use chemical weapons on it's own people (much like iraq), among the many things this 'fascist like' democracy has done. And yes I will eventually stop being lazy and finish my reply to that ko person. Up to 240k. Some of us have a maximum allowed size for their email accounts -- in the case of Hotmail users, that would be 2 MB. Given the volume of list mail, is there any chance you might post that reply on a web page and just post a link to in on-list? I have one un-used screen-name on AOL (I keep my AOL account active for my father's use) that I would be willing to donate (actually, I and my dad use 6 screen-names total, and can easily create a 7th for your use). Thanks in advance, Reggie Bautista _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Brin-l] Attack Iraq, Alone if We Must
At 12:44 AM 9/20/2002 -0400 John D. Giorgis wrote: At 09:23 PM 9/19/2002 -0700 Doug wrote: Could someone point me in the direction of an article that details how Hussein is presently pursuing a policy of genocide similar to that pursued by Milosevic? Two questions: 1) Do you consider US actions against Milosevic to have been justified? 2) Do you support the US having made said actions against Milosevic? Thanks. Oh, and in case it is not clear, I should point out that there is no point in me pointing you in the direction of said article if you do not consider Milosevic's crimes to justify and support the United States leading military action against Milosevic without the explicit endorsement of the UN Security Council. That's why I am asking the above questions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
