JMDL Digest Sunday, November 10 2002 Volume 2002 : Number 476The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Oil/war (njc) (pc) ["kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Oil/war (njc) (pc) [colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] [none] [Franklin Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Fw: Fw: The art of misreading. NJC ["kasey simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Content [Franklin Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Fw: Fw: The art of misreading. NJC [colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Meriwether Lewis(NJC) ["Darice([EMAIL PROTECTED])"<darice@mindspring.] Grammy cut off date [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Re: njc 8 Mile [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Re: Oil/war/UN resolution (njc) (pc) ["kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Madonna, Eminem NJC ["mack watson-bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Oil/war (njc) (pc) ["kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] DED njc ["mack watson-bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] No messin' ["William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Requesting help from Joni fans... [Jesika Nisly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: NJC - What do Bush and Madonna have in common? ["kakki" <kakkib@vzave] RE: Travelogue question (again) [Rob Procyk & Tracy Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Evian takes us down the memory trail [vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Travelogue question (again) ["Mark or Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Oil/war (njc) (pc) ["kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] ouch! njc ["Jim L'Hommedieu \(Lama\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Evian takes us down the memory trail - njc [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:13:02 -0800 From: "kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Oil/war (njc) (pc) Jenny wrote:A couple more thoughts: I think the humanitarian argument for initiating a war doesn't fly becauseit is selective. If we were driven by this, >then we would intervene far more often in the world than we do.
kakki wrote:
Franklin responds:It's a matter of numbers and resources - more people and countries, including the U.S,. are in direct immediate danger from Saddam at this time. If he can be stopped, it is ultimately a humanitarian "win" and may possibly make other despots around the world think twice.
Come on kakki! Us being in immediate danger of Saddam Insane is about as plausible as Mike Tyson being in immediate danger of a grade school bully. And as far as humanitarian wins, the U.S. regime is incapable of honoring the word "humanitarian". How many innocent Iraqi citizens, children have died, starved - sure partly because of Saddam, but they can't get the medical supplies (funny, you'd think the wacky "scientists" over there could plagiarize our medicines if they are so talented at making those BIG BAD BOMBS they "supposedly" have, specifically aimed right at your (OUR) living room TV entertainment centers. Now that's enough to get any ignorant, self-indulgent, "scared" (of what, I might rhetorically ask) plebeian riled to the rafters. BTW, I heard they were thinking of bombing the main Budweizer, Miller, Pabst, Coors and Schlitz breweries simultaneously, but quickly realized after closer evaluation that this would most assuredly cause WORLD WAR III, faster than a major drug-riddled, bimbo-boinking, back-slapping O.J. bash gets thrown after a double murder acquittal by a jury composed of shear rabble!!!
Franklin responds:kakki writes: That was back when Iran was attacking U.S. citizens and avowing itself as an enemy of the U.S.. Not to say it wasn't completely boneheaded to have been so quick to support Saddam. I think the reasoning at the time was to let both of them focus on each other rather than other countries. I've seen this question and heard it answered that the U.S. was also an ally of Stalin in WWII but then that all changed very quickly after that war as we all know.
kakki, kakki. The entire Iraq/Iran war was a military industrial boondoogle which made hundreds and hundreds of billions for the SFGBC (Shadow fascist government billionaire's club). After all, we had kept the dictator - Mr. Shah of Iran in power by selling him all the military hardware his oil bank accounts could handle (hmmmm, seems he hi-tailed it out of there with, what was it, 25 Billion in pocket change before the I-A-TOl-a-So arrived on with his camel caravan. So he did keep a little "pocket" change set aside for rainy days and unforseen emergencies, like losing your DICTATOR job. Gotta have something stored back to keep the kids in AMERICAN colleges - you know how much THAT costs.)
Anyway, the diabolically brilliant SFGBC supplied both sides, ala the non-copyrighted Rothschild philosophy that worked for so many centuries - PROXY. You know, one party supplying both combatants with the weapons to destroy each other. The Rothschild's did that with enormous, gargantuan financial success in Europe for centuries. There's PLATINUM in them thar' hills. It is the surest, most dependable bet in town. Just got to keep fomenting em' up. Bless the CIA stooges, er, I mean "operatives". Just what would we do without them? BTW - are you aware that the bullets in the AK-47's used by the NVA in Vietnam to kill our kin were sold to them by the trainload from a manufacturing plant in Czechoslovakia owned by - you guessed it - the SFGBC. Pure proxy, pure proxy, supplying both sides in the age old tradition.
Franklin responds:kakki writes: I'm still waiting for someone to explain how not trying to stop him will make us safer. If we don't do anything and are attacked in the U.S. with anthrax and smallpox and dirty nukes, which they probably already have in place here, then what do we say? I know a lot of people will say it's all Bush's fault, either way. That will make some people happy because they can feel they were right all along but what a pyrrhic victory for them. What suggestions do you have to stop the threat? I don't mean that facetiously but it seems no one has any better ideas.
What threat? Do you mean the threat of the "Cheney/Bush" Regime assaulting Iraqi with a few hundred thousand troops, and a few hundred billion bucks worth of perfected murder/mayhem gadgets thrown in? (I can smell the Military Industrial side of the Cartel's total glee even as I write). The idea of assaulting Iraqi to defend our "homeland" is equivalent to immediate open heart surgery for acid indigestion after a teenager has just eaten too many Happy Meals. Try Rolaids instead, or if you prefer your calcium compliments of another branch of the pharmo side of the cartel, Pepcid AC. BTY: Bush IS big enough to stand-up and take the heat (blame), after all, he has no alternative - he is under direct orders to do so from his "handlers" and will be well-taken care of when the dust settles.
Jenny asks kakki:Has our intervention and involvement in the middle east *ever* made ussafer?
kakki's reply:
Franklin responds:Yes, for years we've stopped a lot of terrorist groups in the mid-east from attacking us more than they would have if we had just let them go unchecked. However, a lot of our interventions and how they stopped us from harm will never be detailed on TV or universally disseminated. I know this for a fact, and I know that many people in the U.S. who have worked in the government or military also know this for a fact, but are constrained from giving out the details to the public. I'd like to give my own personal knowledge of such instances but I think classified security clearances are in effect forever.
Ya, they're constrained alright. There would be too many criminal prosecutions and jail sentences handed out for international crimes that have been committed, in direct violation of U.S. laws and statutes. Just why do you think we've had terrorist groups to "stop". It is DIRECTLY a reaction to all the ridiculous, exploitive, manipulative, underhanded, conniving, Dictator-picking and supporting the US Regime has done for the GFGBC for decades over there. While I think terrorism is a dispicable reaction reserved for lunatics and brain-washed, false religious indoctrinated morons, just how do you think that a cabal of bitter, brutalized, betrayed bedouins feel about all this? A little peeved perhaps? (By the way, do you/did you, work for the government kakki? Just curious as per your last sentence.)
kakki says:
Tenet is a bona fide, order-taking lackey. You don't get the "heralded" position of head of the CIA without such clearance. No way. Any arguments he has posited differing from the "Administration's" position are merely "plants", directly dictated to him, to make it look like "meaningful" dialogue is occurring.Has George Tenet presented us with a better alternative plan? I haven't seen any, other than to not do anything.
kakki says:
Franklin comments:With all this said, I would still like more details released to the public as to why Saddam is an imminent threat. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both gave interviews on TV back in September stating unequivocally that there is hard evidence linking Iraq and Saddam with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am surprised that more people did not notice this but a lot gets lost in the news coverage. I'd like to hear more about the direct evidence to help myself and others understand the threat better. Although, it's not much of a stretch for me for me to think they are involved with each other. I think we are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is hope that Saddam agrees with the UN resolution and agrees to the start complying again with the UN rules in his country.
What kind of Regime "details"? Would you prefer false (the prevalent variety) or true (don't hold your breath)? The only "hard" evidence I see "linking" Saddam and Osama is that the SFGBC created, trained, funded, and backed them both when it suited their needs. Now they are both "dead" men - having no "practical" purpose anymore while alive to create "economic growth". But wait there's still hope: do you actually think that the SFGBC didn't have this covered from both angles from the start? Come on now! These guys are the original experts at exploiting situations at "every" angle. Always planned that way from the start in fact, every step, every plan. Now "going after them", (killing them as well as everyone else in the vicinity) with as much high-ticket military industrial product as the taxpayers will allow) is going to be the next step in paving the way to the SFGBC members bulging-at-the-seams, elephantile bank accounts. Man, they just get ya' coming and going, don't they? What a bunch a' guys. Ya gotta hand it to them, they sure are "creative" in their own little proxy/foxy ways.
Franklin
