From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 14:39:14 MDT
On 1 Aug 2002 at 13:15, Kirk Steele wrote:
>
> Mind if I tease along.....
>
Feel free, but you might wanna start with my reply to this (already
posted).
>
> Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees 1] Members of that organization have already vaporized thousands of our
> citizens in a skyscraper.
> [Joe Dees 1] The rest of them have pledged to kill as many of us as possible as long as
> they shall live.
> [Joe Dees 1] We know where some of them are, and that they are planning to launch
> further attacks against us. The land in which they are preparing is unwilling, or unable, to
> stop them.
> [Joe Dees 1] WE STOP THEM. It is what is NECESSARY to protect our citizens.
>
> [Hermit 2] I'm think I'm confused. Which "land" are you talking about?None of the
> terrorists came from Aghanistan - or Iraq. They came from Saudi Arabia and other US
> sponsored totalitarian regimes, via a number of European countries - and Canada to the
> US. I don't recall the US bombing any of those countries - although we did bomb a number
> of Canadians. But I'm not sure which part of law you are arguing! about here?
>
> [Joe Dees 3] Fifteen of the nineteen were indeed Saudi, but the major funders and
> planners were holed up in Afghanistan, which refused to relinquish them, and had been
> for years. It is also from there that they sent word that they planned to launch future
> attacks.
>
> [Hermit 4] So killing Afghans, despite the fact that this was a breach of International law,
> was justified?
>
> [Joe Dees 3] Iraq's claims to infamy are:
> [Joe Dees 3] 1) the production of chemical and biological weapons, some of which they
> used against a neighbor (Iran) and some of which they used against an oppressed
> minority, the Kurds, within their own borders.
>
> [Hermit 4] You forget that the US (and Germany) supplied if not the weapons, then the
> precursors and technology to produce them for use against Iran. This is proven by a court
> case in Germany and the fact that analysis of samples taken at the scene proved to have
> come from a lab located in the Midwest. In addition, ! the US has just scuppered the treaty
> which this would have been illegal under, and had the director of the UN investigation unit
> fired for saying so... A case of the pot calling the kettle names.
>
> [Joe Dees 3] 2) their invasion and occupation of (and attempt to annex) Kuwait, a
> sovereign nation.
>
> [Hermit 4] Do you recall how the US ended up with a number of possessions and territory?
> Perhaps not. But as you have previously acknowledged, that sovereign nation was doing
> them vast harm (slant drilling). Surely they merely engaged in preemptive defense, just as
> you have advocated the US do? In addition, Kuwait was created from a single nation by
> the British without a referendum or diuscussion and with no historic precedent. They were
> simply reintegrating Kuwait into their historic territory - and you have suggested that this is
> legitimate in the case of Israel. Besides, Kuwait is a non-democratic country applying
> Sharia law. And Iraq, no matter how offensive you find! it, is a democratic state applying
> secular law. You seem to be confused. Again. Or still.
>
> [Joe Dees 3] 3) their plot to assassinate former president Bush during a visit he made to
> Saudi Arabia, for which seventeen, I think, were beheaded.
>
> [Hermit 4] I'm not sure what the number beheaded has to do with it? In any case, the US
> has attempted to assassinate many world leaders. Indeed, President Bush rescinded the
> orders which made this ilegal under US law, despite the fact that it remains a grave
> breach of International Law. Are you suggesting that President Bush should be a
> legitimate target for, say, Fidel Castro, who survived many (inept) attempts on his life by
> the US Government?
>
> [Joe Dees 3]4) Iraq's flauting of UN inspections and their expulsion of the inspectors.
>
> [Hermit 4] But did they? Several heads of missions have stated this was not the case,
> although the US blocked attempts by the UN to get to the bottom of the story. Yes, Iraq
> did force! one mission to withdraw, asserting (subsequently confirmed) that the mission
> was engaging in espionage and reporting information directly to the US. Were they
> justified? Certainly the US has refused entry to UN inspections.
>
> [Joe Dees 3]5) their willingness to provide safe have to terrorists of all stripes, providing
> their targets include Israel and the US.
>
> [Hermit 4] Al Qu'aeda is as much of a threat to Iraq as to the US. And the US not only
> provides a safe haven for, but has also trained, more terrorists than any other nation.
> Indeed, the US stands condemned by the UN for engaging in terrorism, Iraq does not.
>
> [Joe Dees 3]The reason that Israel bombed iraq's nuclear facility is that Saddam hussein
> had made clear his intention to use nukes built with the aid of that facility on Israel, which
> would have provoked a response from the Israeli Dimona nuclear arsenal, and likely, in
> those
> cold-war times, precipitating a wider war.
>
> [Hermit 4] I'm not! sure what this has to do with the cas, but as I recall, the US was one of
> the first countries to condemn Israel (at least publically) for her "precipitate and illegal"
> action. The US even suspended arms sales and deliveries to Israel because of it. So how
> does what was "precipitate and illegal" when Israel did it in the 70s become "considered
> and legitimate" when you advocate this course of action only a quarted century later?
>
> [Hermit 4] If Everything is equal, it appears to me that you are asserting that the US claims
> to infamy are at least as good as those of Iraq. So why are you attempting to justify war
> against Iraq?
>
> [Hermit 2] What happens if a member of a Canadian English "Free Quebec from the
> French" group, which had declared themselves prepared to sacrifice their lives against the
> French (for dumping Frenchmen in Canada), happened to train with the "patriots" on the
> West Coast, and then were to blow up the Eiffel Tower, killing thousands of Parisians. !
> Would such an action entitle the French to bomb the US, or Canada, or both, if the
> Americans or Canadians couldn't track down other members of the group?
>
> [Joe Dees 3] If the Canadians didn't try, or were outgunned (neither likely), and refused to
> allow the French to help pursue the perpetrators, yes, the french would have the right to
> bomb pinpointed locations of the "FQFTF" bases, and even send in troops to apprehend
> them, but of course, the likelihood of 1) such a group committing such an act and 2) the
> canadian government refusing to either apprehend them themselves or allow the french to
> help them do so, is slightly less likely than the odds that there are dwarves fellating
> unicorns beneath the mountains of the moon.
>
> [Hermit 4] So you are asserting that e.g. Cuba would have a legitimate reason to attack
> the US to arrest those involved in highjacking and other acts of terrorism who are beng
> sheltered in the US, many of them in Florida?
>
> [Hermit 4] How ! about other erstwhile South American allies wanted for crimes against
> humanity which the US refuses to arrest and deport? Are those states also entitled to
> attack the US? What about those who fled the fall of the peacock throne and are still
> sought by Iran for torture and murder on a brutal scale?
>
> [Hermit 4] Or is America different for some reason? If so, what is that reason?
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
>
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:50 MDT