John Clark wrote:
> Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> Wrote:
> > I could go into exactly why the Taliban and many in that area
> > have reason to hate the US or at least its policies. But I would be
> >repeating myself. Hint: It is not because we are infidels
> Lousy hint because they do hate us because we're infidels, or more
> specifically successful infidels. They hate the fact that we're rich and
> despite siting on top of most of the world's oil they are not. Most of all
> they hate the western popular culture that is spreading all over the world
> and the fact that the Taliban popular culture is not.
> >stop the knee-jerk support of Israel.
> Oh no, I agree with you on something! I'd better reexamine my position.
> >Remove our military bases from Muslim holy lands.
> If you think the root of these problems is a few hundred American
> soldiers in Saudi Arabia a thousand miles from Mecca you live in
> a delusional world.
I did not say that it was the root. I said it was an utterly
unnecessary affront in an already brittle region.
> > Stop manipulating the governments of countries
> You mean do something that no other country has ever done, or even tried
> to do in the entire history of the world? It's not going to happen nor should it.
I stated it too lightly. We have directly disrupted and
destroyed the duly elected government of various nations and
installed our people who would agree to our manipulations in
their place. We have used assasination and blatant terrorism in
some cases, in the process. In all such cases I am aware of we
acted in ways we brand illegal and terrorist if they were done
or attempted on us. Every country does not do this and even if
they did, it would still be clearly wrong and against our stated
ideals to do so. It is also clearly a perfectly valid reason
for peoples so affected to be damn pissed off at us.
> >Stop bombing Iraq and lift the sanctions.
> Samantha I beg you, consider the implications of what you are saying.
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world,
> today he would also own of the first and third largest too and thus control
> the world economy if he hadn't been defeated militarily (and I'll bet you
Tough. Do you believe in free enterprise or not? Do you
believe that if someone you don't like owns resources you need
that that justifies going in and snatching them or doing your
damnest, even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent
lives to replace him with someone you like better?
> opposed that too, tell me if I'm wrong). Here is a man who invaded his neighbors,
With our implicit and nearly explicit consent which we reneged
> slowly tortured and murdered his political opponents, spent billions on chemical
as we also have a habit of doing..
> and biological weapons while his subjects live in poverty and children starved,
we also spend billions on "defense" which is not always
defensive at all and still have far too many of our people in
jail and far too much poverty and illteracy..
> here is a man who dropped nerve gas bombs on his own people, a man who
we are a people who have done bio-warfare, radiation and disease
tests on civilians without their consent. We also sold him
(indirectly through Canada) that nerve gas so he could better
whoop up on the Iranians who we also wanted to keep in line.
> is frothing at the mouth to obtain nuclear weapons, and how do you advise
> dealing with a man like that, what do we do the next time he decides to engage
We already have nukes. Thousands of them. And we occassionally
float the idea of using "tactical" nukes to further our agenda.
In a world with superpower[s] greedy for oil who have nukes and
who are not above using force to get their way and sitting
beside a nuclear-capable hostile country, I would want nukes or
something equally deterrent myself if I was the ruler of Iraq.
I advise dealing with him like with any other ruler of a
sovereign nation we are supposedly not at war with.
> in murder at the wholesale level? Well, we certainly can't do anything militarily,
> we can't do anything economically either, and considering your well known
> horror of insults (directed at anybody but me that is) we can't even give him a
Have I insulted you since all the past brouhaha? No? Then why
bring it up?
> good tongue lashing as we might hurt poor Saddam's feelings, the only method
This is deteriorating in quality rapidly. Stick to what I
actually say if you intend to discuss with me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:27 MDT