← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Spida
Thread ID: 5484 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2003-03-11
2003-03-11 20:40 | User Profile
How much time does Saddam need? Are we going to ignore his violations forever?
2003-03-11 21:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 11 2003, 14:40 How much time does Saddam need? Are we going to ignore his violations forever?
Why do birds sing so gay?
Seriously, I could care less about Hussein's violations, just like I could care less about Israeli violations of UN resolutions or ours, for that matter.
What I do care about is having my money back that the FedGov confiscated for Israel to prop up their economy. I got private school curriculum fees and a mortgage to worry about.
2003-03-11 21:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 11 2003, 15:40 ** How much time does Saddam need?ÃÂ Are we going to ignore his violations forever? **
What is he violating and who cares anyway. Iraq is not a military threat to anyone, even Israel, so this War is bogus before it even has begun and billions of people around the world know it and now hate the USA more than ever before. It's about perpetual war for perpetual peace and Hussein is just the Neocon boogeyman du jour. Stop watching Faux News.
2003-03-11 22:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 11 2003, 14:40 How much time does Saddam need? Are we going to ignore his violations forever?
President Saddam will need an additional 6.428^-3 kilofortnights to finish hiding his wide variety of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The game show he won them off of (since we have no capacity to produce them :() just dropped them off in the desert, as far away from the disease and starvation of the cities as possible, which makes the work that much harder. My colleagues in the Iraqi Presidential Guard have just been working around the clock to hide them wherever we can: in violin cases, taped to the backs of toilet tanks, etc. I'll keep you all posted on our progress.
Drakmal Secret Iraqi Infiltrator
2003-03-12 01:51 | User Profile
So if Saddam can violate UN resolutions why can't the United States?
2003-03-12 01:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 12 2003, 01:51 So if Saddam can violate UN resolutions why can't the United States?
How about Israel? They are always violating UN resolutions. Don't you think Israel should be attacked first and we can get to Saddam later?
2003-03-12 02:03 | User Profile
Right, if we allow Saddam to continue to ignore UN resolutions then we might as let Israel do the same too.
2003-03-12 02:15 | User Profile
Charlie Reese summed it up nicely: our only right regarding Iraqi weapons is the right of self defense. Iraq is a sovereign nation, whether the illustrious Chimp-in-Chief likes it or not. If Saddam is fool enough to use his hypothetical nuke against us, then we have every right use a small portion of our vast inventory to vaporize Iraq.
That's it.
2003-03-12 02:36 | User Profile
Everyone wants to use the UN to fight Iraq. I think you have too much faith in the UN to do the right thing. I see a lot of bureaucracy and little action.
Sure the liberals say that the sanctions are horrible. How do you make sanctions only hurt the government and not the people. If Saddam had turned over all his weapons I believe that sanctions would be over. Now we have to go to war. He invaded another country and has failed to live up to the terms set to him for peace.
You see, we supported Afghanistan during its fight against the USSR. WHy couldn't the UN help the Afghany people at the time if they care so much about them now?
The liberals worry that we are dealing with other bad states to stop terrorism. How do they propose we fight the war if we had no allies?
Bin-Laden who was the leader of Al-Quaeda doesn't like our presence in Saudi Arabia. He sees us as keeping him from his goals there. I don't think Bin-Laden was trying to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. And any ways, we saved Saudi Arabia from being invaded by Saddam - isn't that worth something?
If everyone loves the UN so much why doesn't other countries give them more money? WHy rely on the US for everything?
The UN is so worried about terrorism from Israel. Let them step up to the plate and fight terrorism in Iraq. The problems in Israel will not go away this week. If you let Saddam get away with violations - might as well allow Israel too. Iraq violated their resolutions now we have to bomb him out of power.
If we would have went into Iraq in 91 and got rid of Saddam then we wouldn't be in this mess now.
The liberals say that the Afghan government is a puppet of the US - that is untrue and things are getting better there. The conditions in a new Iraq would be the same. In the long run things would get better. We've done it before: South Korea, Japan, Germany. The liberals say they are worried that the US will control yet another country. There are no governments today that are under US control.
How would weapons inspections continue without our armies on Saddam's boarders? What are the alternatives that the liberals are coming up with? France is not mentioning any of them.
Saddam is a threat now and he isn't going away anytime soon without a war. The war must happen.
2003-03-12 05:23 | User Profile
Saddam never had intentions of invading Saudi Arabia, regard.ess of the fabricated evidence the US government presented. I don't understand why many people take no offense to being lied to.
There is no terrorism from Iraq. How about a little real evidence rather than these unsupported claims?
What agreements are Iraq violating? There's no dispute that Israel is in violation of many more. If Bush wants the UN and the US to be credible, shouldn't we be bombing Israel now?
We aren't in a mess now, save for what President Bush is creating. But, if we took Saddam out in '91, we would have mired ourselves in a real mess. You'll soon get a demonstration, so pay attention.
Things are not getting better in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been taking over the countryside. Opium production levels are much higher than under the Taliban. Muslim law is again being enforced. Terrorist camps are re-opening. And, this is while the US still has a strong force over there and is throwing lots of money at the country. Just wait another few years. It's way too early to claim any success.
You can argue that the army on the US boarder makes weapon's inspections possible. But, this isn't true. Without a huge attack force, weapon's inspections continued after the Gulf War until the US weakened their effectivness by infiltrating them with CIA spies and then by finally pulling them out. The only threat we really need to make inspections work is the threat of bombing anything we can't look at.
Besides, I thought the neocons claim that the inspections aren't working so it is contradictory for them to argue that the inspections are working (... are working because of the US army on the boarder that is poised to destroy Iraq.)
2003-03-12 05:31 | User Profile
Spida, you sound like you'd make an excellent forward scout. You have joined up, yes?
I rest my Amerikan mentality case!
2003-03-12 06:01 | User Profile
{Saddam never had intentions of invading Saudi Arabia, regard.ess of the fabricated evidence the US government presented. }
Where can I find out that this was a lie?
What happens if Saddam gives a terrorist a bomb and then we can't prove who gave it?
{What agreements are Iraq violating?}
Wasn't there disarming resolutions from the last 12 years? Isn't that what's on the news all the time?
Yes, let's start enforcing these resolutions, starting with the one at the head - Iraq. Then let's move on to Israel and see what can be done. Maybe the resolutions from the UN should call the Hammas terrorist organization what it really is then we'll support it.
{But, if we took Saddam out in '91, we would have mired ourselves in a real mess. }
How so?
{Things are not getting better in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been taking over the countryside. Opium production levels are much higher than under the Taliban. Muslim law is again being enforced. Terrorist camps are re-opening. And, this is while the US still has a strong force over there and is throwing lots of money at the country. Just wait another few years. It's way too early to claim any success.}
Why not give me a source, I am open minded - I might believe these strange claims.
{weapon's inspections continued after the Gulf War until the US weakened their effectivness by infiltrating them with CIA spies}
Why would the US need spies in Iraq?
Inspections are working now, but can we keep an army on the board forever?
What about Al-Quaeda's voiced will to work with Saddam?
Al Qaeda is operating in Northern Iraq and Saddam's doing nothing about them. Doesn't that worry anyone?
2003-03-12 06:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 12 2003, 02:03 ** Right, if we allow Saddam to continue to ignore UN resolutions then we might as let Israel do the same too. **
Exactly.
And since we've gone ahead and admitted that nobody takes the UN and its resolutions seriously anyway, what say we admit that the whole thing is a fraud and pull out of it.
That way we can leave outlaw states like Israel and Iraq work out their own destinies, and Tex and I will have more money to pay down our mortgages.
It's just a better way to go, both morally and financially.
Walter
2003-03-12 06:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Spida@Mar 12 2003, 06:01 ** {Saddam never had intentions of invading Saudi Arabia, regard.ess of the fabricated evidence the US government presented. }
Where can I find out that this was a lie?
What happens if Saddam gives a terrorist a bomb and then we can't prove who gave it?
{What agreements are Iraq violating?}
Wasn't there disarming resolutions from the last 12 years? Isn't that what's on the news all the time?
Yes, let's start enforcing these resolutions, starting with the one at the head - Iraq. Then let's move on to Israel and see what can be done. Maybe the resolutions from the UN should call the Hammas terrorist organization what it really is then we'll support it.
{But, if we took Saddam out in '91, we would have mired ourselves in a real mess. }
How so?
{Things are not getting better in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been taking over the countryside. Opium production levels are much higher than under the Taliban. Muslim law is again being enforced. Terrorist camps are re-opening. And, this is while the US still has a strong force over there and is throwing lots of money at the country. Just wait another few years. It's way too early to claim any success.}
Why not give me a source, I am open minded - I might believe these strange claims.
{weapon's inspections continued after the Gulf War until the US weakened their effectivness by infiltrating them with CIA spies}
Why would the US need spies in Iraq?
Inspections are working now, but can we keep an army on the board forever?
What about Al-Quaeda's voiced will to work with Saddam?
Al Qaeda is operating in Northern Iraq and Saddam's doing nothing about them. Doesn't that worry anyone? **
Spid, 'fess up.
You're a Freeper.
C'mon. It's okay.
We'll still like you and all.
Walter
2003-03-13 05:59 | User Profile
What is a freeper?
2003-03-13 15:50 | User Profile
A freeper (FreeRepublic) is one who believes the United States must "liberate" the Iraqi people from "Hitlerian" Saddam Hussein. They are blind followers of Political Correctness while claiming to be "conservatives" under the Limbaugh/O'Reilly definition. They are dangerous fools.
I was watching BBC news the other night. They had British reporters inside Baghdad. A huge, sprawling, thriving metropolis, itz. Clearly, these people are not oppressed by evidence of CD shops with posters of Britney Spears and nike sneakers, bars selling alcohol, markets selling all kinds of food and clothing, an actual stock market/trading offices, gun shops, mass transportation, and many other examples of modernity. Also, people who are short on money are supplied with government food handouts on a monthly basis, for little as the equivalent of US$.10....this all could've been staged propaganda, but I don't think it was staged at all. It seemed too spontaneous.
The Iraqi people interviewed seemed very open and honest, especially one food shop owner who said..."the Americans say they are coming to liberate us. Liberate us from what? Iraqis believe that Americans are coming to really enslave them."
Nonetheless, I haven't caught any in depth analysis of the Iraqi people's situation on any USFederal media newscasts.
2003-03-13 15:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Mar 13 2003, 10:50 ** Nonetheless, I haven't caught any in depth analysis of the Iraqi people's situation on any USFederal media newscasts. **
Check out the interactive journal here:
[url=http://www.gannettonline.com/gns/faceoff/index.html]http://www.gannettonline.com/gns/faceoff/index.html[/url]
2003-03-13 16:34 | User Profile
Weisbrot, merci beaucoup for that link. It's interesting to see those stories from American news outlets. Obviously, Iraq was a highly advanced country within the Middle East, probably the most advanced besides Israel, before Gulf War I, and has desperately tried to rebuild throughout the last decade since. All the while oppressive and destructive sanctions hindered their every effort to rebuild waste water treatment plants, water purification plants, electrical power stations, medical equipment, bridges, roads, everything needed for a decent quality of life for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, there's just not enough resources to totally rebuild a city such as Basra, in the southern no fly zone nonetheless, which is not the fault of Saddam. I truly feel for those people. They deserve trade, not more bombs and destruction.
2003-03-13 17:54 | User Profile
In Iraq, a citizen can buy a gun or practice the religion of his choice without worry of having his head cut off by the government for converting to Christianity. Most of our allies in the middle-east are more oppressive than Saddam.
But, neocons believe in propaganda and lies. They believe that war justifies lies. They don't hold it against Bush Sr. for making up lies about Iraqi troops massed along the Saudi border. Bush was proven to a be a liar when Russia released satellite photos showing open desert along the border. When the US was caught using inspectors spying, instead of noticing the news stories, they'll constantly forget and always be demanding evidence for eternity (hint, use a search engine and stop playing ignorant, neocon). And, speaking of demanding evidence, they never provide any, at least anything truthfully. All the evidence Bush and Powell have presented against Saddam has either been wild exaggerations or outright lies.
For example, two seconds with a search engine turned up:
[url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/iraq-j07.shtml]http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/.../iraq-j07.shtml[/url]
America lost the moral right to take part in inspections, not that any neocon could care about morality any more than about truth.
2003-03-14 01:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Mar 11 2003, 20:15 ** Charlie Reese summed it up nicely: our only right regarding Iraqi weapons is the right of self defense. **
Charley Reese thinks sovereign nations have a right to a nuclear armory. That is way too idealistic. We shouldn't allow any new members into the nuclear club,m except maybe Taiwan :D , and especially not tinhorn dictators like Hussein.
2003-03-14 01:46 | User Profile
It is possible that some good might come out of stomping Hussein into the dust, and that is it might cause the Muslim hordes colonizing Europe to revolt. If the revolt was spectacular enough the European countries might respond by ending all immigration; and if the revolt was really spectacular the Europeans might actually expell the Muhammedans.
2003-03-14 02:22 | User Profile
If by some miracle Jean-Marie Le Pen had defeated Chirac, it would have been interesting to see his reaction to the current situation with Iraq. Certainly, he would be opposed to American 'benevolent global hegemony' and on that basis one would think he would oppose the war. On the other hand, can you imagine how tempting it would be for Le Pen, despite his ideological opposition to neo-con adventures, to actually support it, to the extent of sending French troops along with US troops to Iraq...just to goad the "French" Mohammedans into a series of riots?
2003-03-14 05:08 | User Profile
Its not alright with me that this crypto-Freeper appeared, Walter.
It's got to be a neocon/Jew avatar, possibly a secret service connection of some foreign or local gov't. Questions like that, plus **GET SMART!** (get it, rach rach) work well for them.
Whernever you read or see anythng this boggling -- causing one to oscillate, mentally, between the absurd and the provocative -- it usually traces to Jews supporting this "war", or some source contaminated by them, in my recent experience.
And they will be yanking all the strings of every symbolic heart they can find, as in **7 FATHER-SON PAIRS IN US WARS -- IN ONE FAMILY!** -- actual MSNBC headline this eve. Imagine that.
No, this is a high-class body-bag salesperson act. Hey! You want your kids brought home in a tow sack?
Here's their story. Their minds became fixated at some time in the past on the idea that someone or something was "out to get them." When they grow up, they find and get together with others who have always sorts felt the same way, since childhood, so ... they focus on someone or something contemporary all of them agree is one bad customer, all right, and then they get that guy shooting off his Little Red Ryder BB gun -- and after a while, although he hasn't been detected acting radically different from 12 yrs ago, they send out scouts, called TontoFreepers, asking whether the rare old gentleman from ancient Babylon, Mr Saddam Husseinstein (student in U. of Brazile turned up document linking ancestry with Jewis- Hamite intermarriage link: see www.clonejesus.org) hasn't had enough time to come clean about his weapons of mass destruction, or whether our boys don't have to go in there and take 'em out.
I got this story straight from a renouned Jewish psychologist, who figured out every little boy's main ambition in life is to have sexual realations with **THAT WOMAN**, their mother, which naturally puts them at odds with their old man, causing the more native souls among them to grow up yelling MUTHAF- in his face, out of impudence and jealously. I've tested this man's theory and found that, while it explains a lot, such as why these people get together to make wars of "liberation" which are really assaults on civilization (their way of gettin' it on, while slaying the Poisonous Placenta to **gain rebirth**for us/them fetal siblings -- in the psychotic delusions they fall into, accepted in daily life as a split-off, "normal" surreality -- it doesn't hold much water for white people with good church life upbringing. It provides a surrogate external "mother" of larger than sexual relationships in which to work through, without losing, the original flush of early (I agree with Freud about childhood sexuality being a fact, in a totally unfocues, generic sense).
But that was then. Now, those who grow up unrelieved of that "something out there is after me" feeling act out war = rebirth scenarios. Later Freudianism says, which I believe, that under later conditions of stress those who are most fearful will tend to dominate, promising protection and deliverance by force from the fantasized state of being trapped in the birth canal. Youth are the sacrifice on altars; in delirium, the group is seized by the single thought that an explosive ripping open of the Poisonous Placentas skin, and shedding their blood, will "rebirth" = relief from the terrible agony of pressure, helplessness, loss of oxygen, constant strain.
Sacrificial War Priests are often kids from "illuminati families" like the Bush's, prone to "alter" personality states, of increased hypnotic suggestability ...similar to the state each person once experienced at birth, passing through a period of increasingly aware perception, down the birth canal.
<b>The question "Hasn't Saddam had enough time?" really asks, according to the theories of this Mr. Freud (addapted): "How long can we stand this situation without (Imploding/Exploding -- disintegrating, like the Columbia space shuttle)?</b>
That's the mentality. It may or may not be helpful to point it out, but it does put skerd's question here in its proper light: the dark.
2003-03-15 02:03 | User Profile
Bardamu Posted on Mar 13 2003, 19:46
It is possible that some good might come out of stomping Hussein into the dust, and that is it might cause the Muslim hordes colonizing Europe to revolt. If the revolt was spectacular enough the European countries might respond by ending all immigration; and if the revolt was really spectacular the Europeans might actually expell the Muhammedans
Phillip Augustus Posted on Mar 13 2003, 20:22
**... can you imagine how tempting it would be for Le Pen, despite his ideological opposition to neo-con adventures, to actually support it, to the extent of sending French troops along with US troops to Iraq...just to goad the "French" Mohammedans into a series of riots? **
My compliments, gentlemen
Too many examine motives for war only and reflexively think in terms of good or bad (mostly bad), likely based on sentimental notion of proper behaviour befitting an independent (i.e., militarily and economically non-interdependent) republic long since dead. For nationalists, whether Gulf War II is desirable must be viewed from the standpoint of value gained from presence of a single act in a play. The stakes are by an order of magnitude greater than various ephemeral aims of securing oil, exporting democracy, effecting regime change, force opening markets or countering foreign threats.
The real nightmare is an unstoppable global entity ruled by Zionist mentality, shared by master and serf alike; openly serving corporate interests, indifferent to citizens and cogs; untouchable by external forces, secured by unparalleled technological superiority in weaponry; presiding over all races (pending complete mongrel status), decreasing white numbers and influence; and holding everything in concert via suffocating propaganda, necessary to keep the hordes off each otherââ¬â¢s backs while fighting for diminishing resources. Lest anyone think I jest, consider the following quote by Frank Ellis from his ââ¬ÅMulticulturalism and Marxismââ¬Â essay posted elsewhere on OD.
Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions: First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.
This is an apt observation and indirectly supports my thinking on failure of communism as practised by the Soviet. Some feel that Ronnieââ¬â¢s flirtation with ââ¬ÅStar Warsââ¬Â was the coup de grace, others implicate economic policies, but most finger a combination of issues along with a healthy dose of peopleââ¬â¢s yearning for ââ¬Åfreedom and democracy.ââ¬Â This latter position is probably closest to the truth but the part about peopleââ¬â¢s yearning is in need of clarification.
Before I saw democracy at work and long before I learned to view it and communism as two sides of the same coin, employed according to ââ¬Ådifferent strokes for different folksââ¬Â maxim, I knew something about the hopes and dreams of people living in a Soviet satellite. No doubt conditions differed depending on country and oneââ¬â¢s station in life, but, assuming heresy discreetness, conditions were quite bearable and there were few shortcomings of necessities. Going from needs to wants presented more difficulties but these could be overcome in part with black market access and Deutschmarks.
Then there is the domain of pure want -- a sentiment that cannot exist without an example to trigger it -- the main shortcoming of communism and its death knell. Above all, we coveted the cars, the coloured TVs and all the other trinkets that Westerners seemed to have in abundance. The Soviet, you see, neglected to implement Ellis' first conclusion, namely, the elimination of all opposition everywhere -- with the result that there were examples to tempt followers, willing or otherwise, with foreign orthodoxy. Thus Mordecaiââ¬â¢s gospel advocating a world revolution was not heeded and the faith fell into disrepute.
The religion of multiculturalism may still be in an embryonic phase but its pushers give every indication that they are familiar with the vital need of ââ¬Åeliminating all opposition,ââ¬Â as every white nation has seen infusion of racially non-compatible aliens in the last decade. Once countries are dealt with, it remains to account for separate regions within nations, those with luxury of ample living space. Eradication of basis for comparison must not neglect potentially damming intra-state/provincial studies. In the US it was Iowaââ¬â¢s penance in the early 90ââ¬â¢s and today it is Maineââ¬â¢s. Canada is busy showering ââ¬Åtalentedââ¬Â newcomers with cash incentives to live in small towns and interior regions. No political entity free of elevated crime rates, free of racially based statutes and quotas impacting business and government, and free of squalor and filth that accompanies white displacement must be allowed to endure and serve as a desirable example. Whites living elsewhere must not covet. White flight or emigration is fine since it cannot be prevented, and, in any case, will cease to be an option once all regions are appropriately ââ¬Ëenriched.ââ¬â¢
The balance of my nightmare scenario flows directly from the consequence of importing non-whites and is understood implicitly by civilized denizens of Manchester, Detroit and Southern California, and soon to be understood by the entire Occident. This is more than a second-approximation assessment; it is straight-line computation. Depend on it.
With these stakes in mind, what position should a nationalist assume with regard to the coming war? In my mind, the political destruction of the Judeo-American Empire with its false gods of democracy, hyper-capitalism/consumerism and multiculturalism is imperative, but social unrest on account of racial differences is desirable in any Western country since we are in dire need of examples. Accordingly, the only issue is the symbolic value of an Oklahoma boy patrolling ravaged Iraq and its motivational impact on Islamic elements within the Occident. I humbly suggest evaluating accordingly.
2003-03-15 17:01 | User Profile
**My compliments, gentlemen. **
Same to you.
**The real nightmare is an unstoppable global entity ruled by Zionist mentality, shared by master and serf alike; openly serving corporate interests, indifferent to citizens and cogs; untouchable by external forces, secured by unparalleled technological superiority in weaponry; presiding over all races (pending complete mongrel status), decreasing white numbers and influence; and holding everything in concert via suffocating propaganda, necessary to keep the hordes off each otherââ¬â¢s backs while fighting for diminishing resources. **
A distopic vision after my very own. :( White racism will continue to be blamed for all disfunctional trends in the new society therefore processing the increase in interethnic violence against Whites. The culture attacks its original founders, a form of mythical patricide.
With these stakes in mind, what position should a nationalist assume with regard to the coming war? In my mind, the political destruction of the Judeo-American Empire with its false gods of democracy, hyper-capitalism/consumerism and multiculturalism is imperative, but social unrest on account of racial differences is desirable in any Western country since we are in dire need of examples. Accordingly, the only issue is the symbolic value of an Oklahoma boy patrolling ravaged Iraq and its motivational impact on Islamic elements within the Occident. I humbly suggest evaluating accordingly
It is in our interest (not to mention truth's interests because this entity has lies for blood) that the multicultural entity stumbles, founders, and falls. We surely are not going to defeat it by hand to hand combat. Problem is, and this is the one of the reasons behind inundating us with third world stranger populations, the non-White foreign transplants will never join us-- because of certain psychological laws of minority status, and anyway they are not being demonized, we are.
If for no other reason, I want a revolution because of the hateful propaganda toward my own ancestors and culture being taught in the schools and in the ever present propasphere. This thing that radicalizes us does not radicalize the newcomers, for they are feted like favored guests. The only thing left for us, really, is that the entity stumble over its own arrogance, it's own economic extravagence, which there is every possiblity of it doing considering the fiat money it throws around like there is no tomorrow. That is why, probably, the muliticultural entity is so much in a hurry to break the West's White demographic. If multiculturalism falls before the demographic is broken the reaction could exterminate it. Now there is a nice thought.
2003-03-15 17:36 | User Profile
Greetings Bardamu. It's always heartening to meet a fellow admirer of Louis Ferdinand Celine's Journey to the End of the Night.
Salutations AntiYuppie! Yes, I am a fan of Celine's. As you surmised, that his him up there with his loyal traveling companion Bebert.
**It seems to me that supporting a war against Iraq with the hope that European Muslims riot and the further hope that they become expelled is a rather convoluted way to accomplish the desired task of eliminating third world interlopers from the West. **
You are correct, it is convoluted but then these are convoluted times. In fact it could be are national motto: Mendacity. Pusillanimity. Convolution!
Rather than supporting a ridiculous war that would only benefit Israel and the New World Order
It is possible that this war might destabilize the current multicultural entity. I don't know if it so much a ridiculous war as a very dangerous war. For the NWO to take on Islam in Bagdad, with a menacing eye toward the rest of Islam is hubris. It wouldn't be the first time in history that a war caused the collapse of an empire.
You suggest that we elect men like LePen instead. LePen lost. What are we to do now? Wait for the next election? We are not going to defeat the present inchoate totalitarian entity democratically. Why do you think huge numbers of foreigners are being dumped into our populations? They are going to make White nationalism marginal by marginalizing Whites. Simple in its brutality isn't it?
...and in the meantime destroying the most reliable regime in the Middle East, i.e. one which has stood up to both the NWO and international Islamism), ...
I think you are idealizing Hussein.
Anyway, hoping that this war destablizes the NWO is about the only real hope we have at the moment. That and a fiat dollar collapse.
2003-03-15 23:47 | User Profile
Spida,
** Where can I find out that this was a lie?**
Here are two URLs for you. The first is a website that explores this in detail.
[url=http://againstbombing.org/]http://againstbombing.org/[/url]
A story from the L.A. Times.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/la-op-marshall5jan0...,0,290533.story]http://www.latimes.com/la-op-marshall5jan0...,0,290533.story[/url]
Based on my own personal experience, I`m inclined to give the story credit about there being no invasion planned for Saudi Arabia. I was involved in the early part of the mobilization in GA. Interestingly enough, Frederick Forsyth makes the claim that the photos that were shown to King Fahd (I believe) were doctored pictures in one of his novels.
The Iraqis attacked Kuwait with one Republican Guard Tank division and two motor rifle divisions. After securing Kuwait City, they proceeded to the heel of the country to secure it. They were then withdrawn back to southern Iraq. If there were going to be an invasion of S.A., it would be these troops who would lead it. The only arab troops better than the R.G. are the Jordanians.
** What happens if Saddam gives a terrorist a bomb and then we can't prove who gave it?**
I think this is as likely as being hit by a meteor. I`d be more worried about Israel pulling a stunt like this. I still remember the "Lavon incident."
let's move on to Israel and see what can be done.ÃÂ Maybe the resolutions from the UN should call the Hammas terrorist organization what it really is then we'll support it.
As long as the Neo-cons are running the show, you can bet nothing will be done about Israel and the problems they are trying to drag us into.
**{But, if we took Saddam out in '91, we would have mired ourselves in a real mess. }
How so?**
All you have to do is to consider that we have been in Europe and the Orient for the past 58 years with no end of this overseas deployment in sight. Now, the Neo-cons wish to throw us into the snake pit known as the Middle East because it is in Israel`s interest to have us there. Their problems become ours.
**What about Al-Quaeda's voiced will to work with Saddam?
Al Qaeda is operating in Northern Iraq and Saddam's doing nothing about them.ÃÂ Doesn't that worry anyone?**
In the case of the former, OBL clearly stated the he considers Hussein to be an apostate who should be overthrown. OBL doesnt like him and only wants an Islamic country under koranic law. In the case of the latter, Hussein really cant do a hell of alot about them because of the no fly zone and the decreased combat effectness of his army. The al-Qaeda elements are in the area controlled by our noble Kurdish allies and I dont see the Bush administration getting onto them about this. Whats that that Hannity says all the time? Oh, yeah, "Let not your heart be troubled." Dont worry, Spida, youll get your war. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy it while the getting`s good, because at the end, the U.S. will be ultimately kicked out of the region, one way or another, unless we decide to exterminate everyone who lives there.
2003-03-16 00:28 | User Profile
Good post, sisyfos. btw, the only real change that will occur in the Middle East is a reliquishing of power of those who, as our government does, impose control. Iraq was contructed 100 years ago by British diplomats, who failed to give it a sea port, and that's the main reason why they invaded Kuwait. Kuwait itself is against everything Americans should believe in. It is a family-controlled elitist regime which whores itself to the US and UK as long as they are recognized as kings. Same for Qatar and Oman. The map could very well be cut again, with an independant Kurdistan, but what about those Shiites in Iraq ? Theyre gonna eat up a post-Sadaam land.. the only reason why the United States is waging this war, which will begin in full force next week, is because they want to CONTROL and OVERSEE the formation of sub-cells to the New World Order. The New World Order means that you and your friends and family will no longer have ANY OPTION to make another nation happen. It's OVER. You cannot hide, ANYWHERE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. That's the whole message here. I'm not kidding, I'm serious. The testing ground for these new weapons is Iraq and they will learn much about their capabilities. Of course, thousands of American army conscripts will die in this invasion of Baghdad. But, whatever .. who cares , right ???? The love you feel for your children, your grandparents, your pet, it's nothing. On with the future. Kill by mightier power. Just DO IT and let the press justify it and make it all sound " right ".
2003-03-17 05:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Mar 15 2003, 18:28 On with the future. Kill by mightier power. Just DO IT and let the press justify it and make it all sound " right ".
Good point Excelsis Deo. Like the dirty cop that plants evidence on a suspect, the United States will find those "WMDs" that the UN inspectors were too "dumb" to find. Just give a copy to CNN, FOX, and NBC and the cattle-sheep will feel justified in killing millions of innocent Iraqis. In the meantime, I believe when the war begins soon we will see the full US Police state in action here in the US. So pretty in the "land of the free", I would say. The collapse is imminent. The things got badly, always goes badly.
The US admin is in no-win territory. If Saddam uses very secret chemical weapons he allegedly has on US forces, we risk losing many a GI soldier and my poor French will be in big trouble for vetoing the war. Although Russia and China are very against American hegemonic adventures, the French are an easy easy target for cattle-sheep TV inspired hatred.
The more likely scenario is that the United States annihilates Iraq quickly since Iraq is actually defenseless, killing millions of innocents, and the world sees that Saddam really had no "WMDs" and the US is considered a muderous rogue state. (This is where media lies takes over like I say above) Along with the multiracial boiling pot in this country, a hideous ethnic street battle could begin when the US economy completely falls apart from world wide sell offs of US stocks and isolation of America. When gasoline costs $5 per gallon and milk and bread costs $20.... le merde frapperait le ventilateur!
Let me ask about Kuwait: Was not that country originally part of Iraq 100 years ago? Isn't that why Saddam invaded back in 1990?
[u]Les Francais....d'abord![/u]
2003-03-17 21:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by jesuisfier@Mar 17 2003, 05:26 **Let me ask about Kuwait: Was not that country originally part of Iraq 100 years ago? Isn't that why Saddam invaded back in 1990? **
100 years ago present day Iraq was a collection of provinces of the Ottoman Empire (It became an independant nation state in 1932), so the issue of whether Iraq has a historical claim to Kuwait is nonsensical in that respect. It could be argued that Kuwait should be Iraqi as it was a part of ancient Mesopotamia, but since Mesopotamia was never a culturally or ethnically homogenous entity, as the ethnic division in modern Iraq illustrates, that's a weak arqument. It is important for strategic reasons, ie access to the Persian Gulf to its owner, which is the real issue and is the reason why Iraqi leaders have always laid claim on it, and also why Kuwait was created as an independent Kingdom in the first place.
The pre-national character of the Ottoman empire is also the root of the pro-Zionist claim that 'there is no Palestinian nation or people'.