Date: Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 22:55:29 GMT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <email@example.com>
> > > 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 !
Some of the Middle Eastern nations joined in the coalition, but more global consensus was considered to be a good thing - and it was achieved.
> > 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 !
Yemen is much more interesting to the US, being an Arabian Peninsula nation that harbors Al Quaedans; they are cooperating with us. One would think that France would be more upset at Al Quaeda now, since it was their tanker that was targeted.
> > > << 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!
Let's hope they put it to benevolent use.
> > > 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 !
I don't; the UN WAS indeed that blind; I hope that they see more clearly now, with the benefit of the last twelve years of hindsight.
> > > > > 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 !
The US asks but does not force; other nations are free not to join US coalitions, and indeed have refused many times.
> Under the scheme of national
> security Kennedy was willing to set foot on Cuba !
The Bay of Pigs was a stupid blunder; if the US was going to do it, they shouldn't have depended solely on a Cuban expatriate army to accomplish the goal. And later, the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from the US shoreline - or have you forgot? (Hint: That's why it was called the Cuban MISSILE Crisis). We agreed not to invade Cuba, and the Soviets agreed to remove the nukes.
>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 !?
How many died protecting Soviet interests? It cut both ways. Saddam doen't ask people's cooperation and permission like the US does; he simply kills people.
> > 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 !?
By default, as the only remaining superpower, yes.
> Sorry, Joe, what the US tries to do, they impose on themselves, noone
> asked them to do it !
Wrong. People ask the US to step in and restore order all the time.
> 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 !
Actually, umm, no. If the US really wanted to 'conquer the world', they could do a damn sight better job of it than by leaving everywhere they step in.
> > 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...
It would be a contradiction in terms for a people to choose not to choose. To give people an electoral choice is not to constrain them, but to liberate them from totalitarian constraints.
> 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 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 11 Nov 2002 - 22:58:51 GMT