From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 16:00:22 MST
John K Clark wrote:
> "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>
> > As I and others have pointed out, the so-called Kuwaiti invasion
> > was greatly inflated and partially a setup by America. [...]
>
> So, this list is asked to listen to the wisdom of someone who calls the
> invasion of Kuwait "so-called" and the political expertise of someone who
> says it was somehow (not specified how or why) an American "setup";
> I don't think so.
Then don't. Don't listen and don't bother. This list? This
list has a vast variety of people and points of view on it
regardless of whether you may wish it to more uniformly reflect
your own.
>
> >We then inflated what was going on and faked (as later came out)
> >satellite evidence of a massive Iraqi Army maneuvering to also
> >invade Saudi Arabia.
>
> Baloney. He had a massive army and after he swallowed Kuwait he could have
> taken over Saudi Arabia in just a few days if he wanted to and he certainly
> wanted to, the only reason he didn't is fear of the USA, and if he knew the
> president was listening to advise from you he would have no fear and the
> world would be a sadder and more dangerous place today.
>
The evidence of this massive army was doctored. Sorry if you are
not informed of this.
> >The US and Britain have unilaterally imposed no-fly zones
>
> Well Boo Hoo, poor Saddam has lost some of his power. So this list is asked
> to listen to the ethical advise of somebody who thinks no fly zones are a
> moral outrage but invading Kuwait is not. I don't think so.
>
Boo Hoo when nations take illegal steps against other nations.
Boo Hoo when supposed civilized people do not see this as a
problem. Boo Hoo when the poverty and deaths of hundreds of
thousands are excused so glibly.
> >and conducted bombing runs on various manufacturing centers
> >on the grounds that perhaps they could somehow be used for
> >producing weapons.
>
> Perhaps? For good or bad very soon now we are going to know for sure if
> Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or not, you seem to be predicting
> he does not, I'm predicting he does.
>
Predictions are NO REASON for an invasion.
> > Saddam is far less dangerous than Israel or North Korea or even
> > Pakistan.
>
> Saddam is the only leader in the world who wants weapons of mass
> destruction, invaded his neighbors twice, has a chance to control the
> world's supply of oil and has actually used chemical weapons on his own
> people and on others.
>
Let me get this straight. Saddam is the ONLY leader who wants
WMD? You must be kidding. Or haven't you noticed the other
nations that wanted and have WMD? Were you sleeping through the
news on N. Korea? North Korea says it is developing and/or has
WMD and it will use them at the slightest provocation, even of
sanctions applied. And we back down.
We were fully behind the Iraq/Iran war if that is part of what
you are referring to. We helped build up the military strength
of Iraq and encouraged them. We have used chemical weapons and
have conducted experiements on our own citizens. Does this mean
we should be invaded? We would like to control the world's
supply of oil. Should we be invaded? The supposed gassing of
the Kurds is actually under some contention as it was during the
Iraq/Iran war and the actual gas used judging from the
examination of the victims appeared to more likely be of the
type employed by Iran. Military studies at the time pointed
this out. But we conveniently ignore this as it is inconvenient
for building up the war fever and justification.
Frankly, I find the US position and intentions in this matter
thoroughly sickening and utterly reprehensible.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 15:57:33 MST