In reply to thomas malloy's message of Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:23:40
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Note that the French didn't actually *betray* anyone over Iraq,
Really, what about the Iraqi people? They got screwed over in
numerous ways. The French had their fingers in the oil for food
scandal. They were cutting lucrative deals with Sadam and happily
burning the oil.
According to the fake documents planted in Baghdad after the
invasion. Why do I think the documents are fake?..because they
read like a who's-who of the people the current US administration
doesn't like.
So, you believe that the Kurds gassed themselves to make Saddam look
bad? Or perhaps the Iranians invaded and gassed them? What about the
mass graves? more mass suicide? How about the wedding parties where
the bride was raped and the groom shot if he objected? More attempts
to make Saddam look bad? The Iraqi Government employment documents,
in which the man's job description was "taker of the honor of women",
another fake?
A vote in the Security Council is democracy in action. Sometimes
it doesn't go your way. Get used to it.
The UN is a debating society, and a rather ineffectual one at that.
All large human gatherings end up being debating societies, it's
human nature.
I love to debate. The UN has carried corruption to new heights. They
are every bureaucratic nightmare on steroids.
They screwed the Iraqi people even more than the French with oil for
food, If I had my way, America would with draw it's membership and
financial support from the UN. What kind of a fool would allow Sudan
to chair the Human Rights Commission?
This is a good point.
Thank you
>
The real problem is that the US is all for majority rule, as long
as it is part of the majority, but when the shoe is on the other
You conveniently ignore that Sadam had, and used WMD. The UN gave him
orders to account for certain materials and he ignored them.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020921/2002092124.html
We
decided that the world would be better off with one less tin horn
dictator, and IMHO it is.
1) Iraq is almost certainly better off without Saddam, but the
world as a whole almost certainly worse off as a consequence of
the *increase* in animosity among Muslims world wide, brought on
by the war.
I don't understand how, having previously declared jihad (holy war)
against another group of people, you can possibly increase animosity.
2) Saddam could have been disposed of without going to war.
However the US administration wanted a war.
Regards,
Yah, and who do you think would have deposed him if we hadn't, the
UN? The Arab League? Both groups had members who were too busy lining
their pockets with the proceeds of the oil for food program to let
something like that happen.
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
