Re: Post-Saddam Iraq?

From: Van oost Kenneth (
Date: Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 21:48:35 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: Post-Saddam Iraq?"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: <>
    > > Kenneth,
    > > << 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.

    << Joe, I meant only a coalition with Middle- East forces, if like the US speculates Saddam is a threat to the whole of the region !? IIRC, the US was not at war with Iraq when they attacked it the first time around, there was no reason why the rest of NATO should join the US in the battle. After 9/ 11 the picture is indeed changed. Why was the US demanding European help the first time when accor- ding to the convention of NATO itself the US was NOT at war with Iraq !? IIRC, point 5 in NATO 's codebook stipulates that the rest if they are able, to contribute what they think is necessary when one other member is engaged in a war. The US wasn 't at war with 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
    > 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.

    I don 't doubt it, Joe ! Somalia !? Interests, possibly to protect the entrance of the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden !? Didn 't a tanker blew sky high in Yemen last month !? US interests, maybe not that visible, but they are there !

    > > << 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
    > and they're just as bad. The *regime* has to be changed.

    I understand, ut it would give a boost to the opposition, wouldn 't it !? OOhh, what a chance they would be given!

    > > 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.
    > 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.

    Yes it was ! Was the UN that blind !? I doubt that !

    > > > > There is no record of such attempts, not even the slightest
    > > 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).

    That is not what I meant, Joe ! The US forces others to take part in their scheme, asking many to die ! Under the scheme of national security Kennedy was willing to set foot on Cuba ! How far can you drive this !? How many died in the Cold War, protecting US interests around the globe ! Saddam kills people or watch them die, the US asked people if they were willing to die, under torture if they were to be snapped...where is the diffe- rence !?

    > 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.

    Oh, is that what the us is, the leader of the planet !? Sorry, Joe, what the US tries to do, they impose on themselves, noone asked them to do it ! It is arrogant to say it the US moral obligation, that is drained in what I always suspected what runs underneath the US and that is religion, Gods own country is tying to conquer the world and any opposition will be crushed ! Good show !

    > 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.

    Yes, the elections held last month were a scam, no doubt about that, though, but if you think that the elections which will be set up by the US are biased in the democratic ruling of the democratic principles itself, you are so wrong ! The Iraqi people would have no choise to choose either for or against the elections, they will be held, no matter what ! Democracy, no way ! You have to consider the fact that the possibility exist that the people would reject the possibility that they have a choise... but I undestand we have to start somewhere....even it is IMO the wrong way...


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 21:35:55 GMT