On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:49:24 GMT, The_Fist <johngons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>That post was full of so much utter crap! Let me just put up some of
>my favorites:
>
>- Cardman seems to think that France and Germany violating UN
>sanctioned embargos is completely fine.
When did they do that? Simple future agreements would not do it.
You may notice that the US currently has a trade blocking matter with
Russia. This is directly due to Russia supplying Iraq with weapons
against these UN sanctions.
I see no much thing against France and Germany.
>- He fails to grasp the concept that the "pieces of paper" Saddam was
>giving out was worth ***BILLIONS*** of dollars! Again no big deal.
Let me spell this out clearly.
In the 90s the French oil companies Total and Elf-Aquitaine won the
rights to develop the $3.4 billion Bin Umar project and the vast
Majnoon field in southern Iraq. Total, which has since acquired Elf,
had been unable to exploit these fields all the time that the UN trade
embargo against Iraq was still in place.
As I said it was a simple trade matter. And why should not Saddam have
people he likes to exploit his oil reserves?
You can certainly ask if France was in a position to make a fair
decision. Since this is the UN, then I see no reason why France should
be denied a voice.
Equally you can ask if the US's motivations for this invasion was
based on seizing these same oil fields? That after all is the best
excuse for this invasion so far.
>- He's absolutely utterly qualified to judge America's policies and
>can look down on us with now patented European snobbery without even
>knowing that Bush is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat.
I make some good points, where you are welcome to exploit my
unqualified nature through a good debate.
>- "Peace requires discussion." Gee that sure worked well with Hitler
>didn't it?
Hitler had invaded enough countries by then, where the invasion of
Poland made it clear that he intended to bring suffering to Europe and
beyond.
Saddam concerning Kuwait at least had a reason, when Kuwait has been
expanding it's borders into Iraqi land. So in his view he was simply
taking back his own land and a bit more.
Had the US left Iraq alone, then they would have simply continued on
like they did in previous years.
>- "During WTC 9/11 some Palestinians certainly celebrated Osama Bin
>Laden bringing some "sweet justice" to the US. Arafat knowing better
>to play with fire soon quelled this public celebration."
>
>9/11 = "sweet justice?" Blow me.
As I said they were certainly singing and dancing on the streets as
the two towers of the WTC fell, when many people did see that as
pay-back time.
Maybe you should stop blinding yourself from the views of others?
>- "Israel occupying large areas of land, including Jerusalem,
>certainly makes them a valid target." Wow! I think the Card in
>Cardman stands for Card Carrying member of Hamas.
Had your enemies currently been in control of the likes of New York
and Wa****ngton then you may feel differently. I certainly do not
approve of their actions, but I can also understand them.
>- Saddam gassing Kurds in 1988 is "utter rubbish"
That is not what I said. You are welcome to produce any new
information on this matter.
>- Saddam killing around 500,000 people is "US propoganda" So the mass
>grave we DID FIND that had over 100,000 bodies was made up huh? Let
>me guess, Hollywood special effects.
No, the mass grave that was found contained around 5000 bodies. Those
were the ****ites that Saddam did gas in 1991.
You want to see proof? Then here is the British leader PM Tony Blair
saying it himself...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=cdmihh%24gr1%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu
So you are complete suckers for US Bollocks [tm] Propaganda. They lie
through their teeth to you, where you accept it like farmers leading
sheep to the slaughter house.
Certainly this was a large and terrible loss of life, but on the scale
of things this planet has seen a lot worse.
They were killing his troops in the area so he gassed them. Not a very
nice thing to do, but now you have a good idea concerning just how
many did die.
As I said those numbers quoted were pure fantasy all along.
Had you wanted to know who is to blame for these deaths, then that was
the US once again. They very much did incite them to revolt, where
they never then provided the sup****t they need.
The US created this uprising.
The US failed to sup****t this uprising.
The US provided the WMDs that gassed them.
The US approved of a nut like Saddam being on the trigger.
I find that rather disgusting.
Figured out what you are doing wrong yet?
>- "Most Iraqi civilians liked Saddam Hussein." Oh that's why they
>were parading in the street when Saddam's statue fell
Those were the US soldiers trying to incite the Iraqi people to
celebrate. The response was so low that they even had to im****t a
couple of people from neighbouring countries to see if they could put
on a good local show for the media.
Just more US attempted propaganda. And in the end they did quite a
crap job at it.
Maybe you should try to understand that the Iraqi view is not unlike
one you would feel had the Libyans invaded and occupied the US. I find
such lack of basic understanding as extremely blind.
>and why
>thousands of Iraqis are fighting at our side at this very moment?
I am quite sure that Saddam did have enemies within Iraq, where those
in the Northern region are an obvious example.
The fact that the fighting continues over a year later is proof enough
that you have a great deal of enemies in the region.
>- "That is why in Saddam's last public vote over 98% of people voted
>for him instead of his prime minister." Gee and the fact that
>everyone who criticized him "disappeared" had nothing to do with it?
They did not disappear. Saddam did asked for their names and
addresses, but he was only joking at the time. I doubt that they even
kept a list.
No person would be unhappy with such strong sup****t after all.
>- "I am not a liberal." I actually agree on that. You're SO far left
>that calling you liberal is insult to liberals.
Whatever.
>- "So don't try fooling yourself that you are their glorious saviours,
>come to hand out lollipops to the Iraqi children, when this is
>certainly not the case." That's a great Christmas Card message for
>the families of the American soldiers!
>
>But then again you're the voice of "moral conscious" right?
The politicians like to paint a happy picture. One reason why Bush did
not use the W word in his post 9/11 speech.
So someone needs to remind you what is really going on in Iraq.
>I actually have a mission for you. Keep this up. Keep encouraging
>NBC, CBS, ABC, and every newspaper in the world to keep repeating
>exactly what you're saying.
I would find it hard to believe that you can constantly ignore the
same views again and again.
>this anti-America hate-filled sentiment
America has dug it's own hole. And I certainly don't hate the
Americans, when they just like to elect dumb leaders.
>is exactly why Bush won and why the Republicans are winning. Keep it
>up! Keep going! We need more ammo for '08!
I certainly respect the US voter's choice. Considering your belief in
made up numbers, then this result is not unsurprising.
Well you have Bushy for four more years, where lets see how further US
troops he can get killed. Not to mention those innocent woman and
children who get in the way of his plans.
Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
