In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:45:13 -0600: Hi, [snip] >>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?
I was referring to the oil for food "scandal" documents. I think there is plenty of eye witness testimony to support the fact that Saddam was a tyrant. >I love to debate. The UN has carried corruption to new heights. On the contrary, there is very little corruption in the UN (not much to gain), but a huge song and dance about it. However it doesn't hold a candle to the corruption in the US government, which the song and dance is designed to distract peoples attention from. [snip] >>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. The fact that you (and apparently many like you) don't understand it, is the main reason it's a problem. The US is seen by many around the world as greedy and imperialistic. The (oil) war in Iraq is seen as confirmation of this, and used as a means of increasing recruitment to terrorist organizations. > >>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 Since the UN would have been incapable, NATO might have been a good cover for action by the US, however not by going to war. A small group of highly trained specialists, should have been able to do the job, without engaging whole nations in bloody war. Removal of Saddam would likely have resulted in a civil war within Iraq, but that's essentially what you have now anyway. The difference is that in that case the US wouldn't be losing thousands of its own people, and of course there would be no guarantee of a puppet government in Iraq resulting from it. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
