Date: Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 20:20:40 GMT
> > > Ok, Joe, why is than the Middle East not taking control of the
> > > situation and remove Saddam themselves !?
> > Because Saddam has the largest military in the region, except for
> > Iran, and is willing to use weapons that even Iran wouldn't
> > contemplate.
> << The US has showed in the first Gulf War how to proceed in order to
> defeat Saddam, wouldn 't the US help out the entire Middle- East
> forces to drive him out !? It would , so why is that scenario never
> been tried !? Why is the US so eager to do it themselves, where is the
> snatch !?
Where have you been the past few months? The US had been diligently building a coalition to do just that, and working for the UN Security Council resolution recently unanimously passed.
> > > Why is the US sticking his
> > > fingers up in the Middle- East nose !?
> > Because every time we disengage, the situation worsens and the
> > entire world demands that we get involved again.
> << Oh dear, the lovely peace- making- US !
> Don 't treat the US as a narcistic element of worlds conscience ! The
> US goes in and goes only in when and not even sooner their interests
> are at stake ! Never heard that the Aussies or Canadians asked the US
> to bomb Iraq !
And the US interests were at stake in Somalia? No. And whose interests were at stake in Bosnia and Kosovo? Europe's, not the US's, but Europe lacked the cojones to curb a fascist genocidal bloodletter in their own back yard, so it fell to the US to do it for them. And yes, the US has been engaged in attempting to negotiate a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement for many years, and US participation and mediation has been pivotal in the Northern Ireland peace process.
> > > Israel with all its ability to
> > > defeat their neighbours, as far I know of, didn 't even attempt to
> > > kill Saddam !
> > They did bomb Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, and a damn good
> > thing they did, too; otherwise, the coalition might have faced nukes
> > in the Gulf War. A nuclear Saddam cannot be risked.
> << Killing him, Joe ! They never tried ! Bombing one nuclear reaction
> didn 't lift him out of the saddle !
It's not just him; if he were killed, one of his two sons would replace him, and they're just as bad. The *regime* has to be changed.
> > > Did the US or any other county ever made the suggestion to the
> > > lifeguards of Saddam, or even relatives or ministers to kill him
> > > !?
> > We have made it clear that we support regime change, however that
> > might come about.
> << Only in ways that suits US interest best ! You got the chance to
> snatch the bastard first time around, Swarthkoph or whatever his name
> was, was ordered back, because due to international conventions, the
> one nation which overthrows another its regime is due to support the
> nations people, the US left Saddam in charge in order to come a second
> time around if they needed another scapegoat.
No, the US left him in power for two reasons: 1) to counterbalance Iran. 2) to not exceed the UN mandate, which was not to overthrow Saddam, but only to expel Iraq from Kuwait. In retrospect, to leave Saddam in power in Iraq was a mistake; we should've changed the regime then, and saved the Iraqi citizenry and the world at large twelve years of Saddamic misery.
> > > There is no record of such attempts, not even the slightest
> > > suggestion
> > Because he has those around him cowering in fear. He regularly
> > purges those around him, and any person who appears as though they
> > might be gaining power or favor is executed, usually after massive
> > and prolonged torture. Then Saddam watches tapes of the tortures
> > while he eats his meals.
> The US does the same ! For us or against us, remerber !?
I most sincerely doubt if Dubya regales himself during dinner with tapes of the torture of his enemies and rivals; he certainly has not had any killed here that we know about (and since, unlike Iraq, we have a free press, we would know about the murder of politicians).
> Europa swings at the arms of the US, ( run English puppy, run ) ! Fear
> ? Yes, no doubt about it ! Not of the US but fear that the next time
> there is a blast in the Balkan they wouldn 't come. Because Europa has
> no strong voice, I agree !
Blair is less a poodle than a pit bull. His very existence proves that strength and steadfastness and the rest of the Churchillian virtues are not the exclusive property of conservatives.
> > >Like I said, there is a snag in this story, moreover the position
> > >of
> > > where the US stands in its foreign politic is bullshit- they are
> > > that despotative as Saddam can be
> > Wrongo, boyo; the US gets out when the job is done (and sometimes
> > TOO early), and its most actions have been to feed or free Muslims -
> > in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Afghanistan. You come off
> > like a mindless anti-US memebot.
> << Not wrong Joe ! Not wrong ! I maybe have a different opinion but
> mindless I am not ! An anti- US memebot, neither ! Neither the US or
> Europa or one other country, nation or whatever will engage itself or
> its people in a mindless attempt to save Muslims, or other people
> without knowing there is a snatch for themselves in it ! Such an
> altruistic act on such a massive scale can 't be done ! Memes remerber
> ! If so, I have serious doubts in the general US mental- state. Or do
> you suggest that memes of propaganda, of misguideness or whatever lead
> the American people into any war/ peace making mission that there
> government orders them to !? Chapeau !
Global leadership imposes the moral responsibility to alleviate suffering and liberate the oppressed where it is possible for the US to do so and where other countries refuse to do it. It is a meme; the US feels good about itself when it does the right thing. Also, perhaps the US was hoping against hope that the Muslim world would give it some credit for its efforts on behalf of Islamic peoples; that hope seems to have been largely forlorn.
> > >... the US wants to impose its so called
> > > democratic ruling upon the world ! That is my stand !
> > The definition of democracy is self-rule, therefore truly democratic
> > countries are not ruled by other countries. Your stand is self-
> > contradictory, ignorant and confused.
> << No it isn 't ! If the US drive Saddam out of power and sets up a
> democratic legislation than the definition of self- rule collapses !
> In whatever way you ' help ' the Iraqi people, there is no democratic
> bias for what follows ! The self- rule of the people, if they want
> Saddam out or not is/ was not due to democratic elections, even those
> are set up after months ! The bias where you work upon is flawed ! The
> US sets out the rules, not very democratic isn 't it !?
The "elections" held in Iraq are reminiscent of those held in Third Reich Germany. Elections that the US would set up would be free and fair, and monitors would be welcomed in to observe them. Just like happened in post- WW II Germany and Japan. Eminently democratic.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 20:24:07 GMT