I must have been overlooking this forum for a long time. There are more than 6000 posts on the forum and I have spotted it for the first time. Well, I haven't expected such forum on the game related pages. This is not a game. It is a disaster.
I will not hide that I am a leftist. I am stadning very left from the centre even if I am not a communist.

The comming war with Iraq is the worst news of these days. Unless the war will be approved by UN, the war will be an act of state terrorism, an aggresion, and a crime against peace. Because only UN can approve attack against Iraq according to the UN Charter. The USA could make a war with Iraq only if Iraq endangered USA somehow.

How does Iraq endanger USA? Two reasosns are usually mentioned, both of them are ridiculous nonsense.
1. It is said that Iraq develops weapons of mass destruction. We are told for a long time that Iraq does own these weapons. But - we have never seen any proof of it. Worse, even the new UN monitoring mission hasn't seen any! Let us ask why? Wouldn't it be the most simple proof of the danger comming from Iraq to tell the mission "go there and there and check this and this"? Why the mission is not told where to search for the proof if USA and GB supposedly own such information? I think this dilemma has only one solution: the so called proofs do not exist. The whole propaganda arond Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is a pure war propaganda.
2. Iraq is a source of terrorism. Again, nobody has proved it. A remarkable effort has been shown to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida. No such link has been found even if the State Department, IIRC, created an office specialized in finding it. No results so far. Many terrorists or supposed terrorists has been caught since 9-11 but, IIRC, none of them originated from Iraq neither was connected to Iraq. If some terrorist were connected to Iraq, the media would tell it to us and they would repeat it endlessly. I am sure of it.
Therefore, we can forget both "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism".

Are there any other "reasons" of attacking Iraq?
3. Saddam is a dictator which does not respect any kind of human rights. Yes, he is and yes, he does not. But, first, nobody except Iraquis themselves is authorized to overthrow their dictator. Neither USA nor any other "civilized country" is authorized to substitute Iraq nations! This is no reason! And, second, don't we support or haven't we supported similar or worse regimes around the world? Didn't we supported Pinochet? Didn't we prevent victims of Pinochet's terror from putting Pinochet to the court? Didn't we support Taliban for a long time? Aren't we supporting Saudi Arabia and similar countries? Why the double measure? Why one dictator is good and another one is bad?
4. Saddam does not obey UN resolutions. Again a double measure. Near Iraq, there is another country that does not obey any UN resolutions for dozens of years. Nevertheless, that country is supported by us all the time without any restrictions or sanctions. Every UN resolution that would engage that country to anything was vetoed by the USA. Only toothless resolutions were allowed to pass. I shall consider the argument (4) only when I shall see that the same argument is applied to all which do not obey UN resolutions.

So why on earth. Why? I think there are two "reasons" for the war.
1. Oil. Let us note that the USA are a bit "out of game" as far as Iraq oil is considered. Iraq made contracts with French and Russian companies. This must change! All resources on this planet must be controlled by the USA and only by the USA! The others can contribute but not rule! In the other words, the New World Order as we know it from the famous Orwell's 1984. The war with Iraq is a part of conquerring the World.
2. The genocidal UN sanctions. The sanctions are run by the USA and GB. Other countries aren't happy to see them. Not because they love Saddam but because the sanctions are murdering innocent people instead of hitting Saddam. So far, more than 1.5 millions of Iraquis died of the sanctions. More than 800 000(!) of them were children. Two attempts of hiding the real essence of the sanctions were made so far:
a) The "Oil for Food" programme. The attempt failed because of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck. They told the world the truth.
b) The "Smart Sanctions" attempt. The attemt was devised badly so that the others saw through the fog of the "Smart Sanctions". The "Smart Sanctions" were the "old sanctions" which pretended that Saddam was guilty of deaths of Iraquis, not the sanctions themselves. Vetoed.
Let us note that the sanctions are at their end. They cannot be maintained for a long time anymore because the number of their victims is too big. On the other hand, a retreat is impossible - it would be a gigantic exposure which could end at the ICC. Is there any other way out? Yes it is! A war! Therefore:
a) Make a war with Iraq. Occupy Iraq.
b) Import the "Iraq weapons of mass destruction". Find them. This will give a reason for the war.
c) Create a puppet government in Iraq.
d) Replace history by a lie. Accuse the current Iraq government of the deaths caused by the sanctions. End the sanctions. Conquer the oil.

Radek, this is a temporary forum. Originally it was created to discuss the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent events but was taken down.

Please be sure to read Ziroc's welcome to all users of this forum. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Okay [img]smile.gif[/img]

1. UN isn't any ruler and it cannot be any ruler. It weren't devised to be some kind of ruler. UN is a place where the problems between countries should be solved and a chance for a peace should be searched for. That's the role of UN. All members of UN, including the USA, engaged themselves to obey the UN Charter. Among others, they promised not to use power against themselves and solve problems by means of negotiations. They also delegated the decision whether to use power against some country to the Security Council.

2. Ask yourself. Why do the inspectors look at wrong places? And, is it really impossible to tell the inspectors where to search? Must such pointer endanger anybody? You need not tell the source of the information! Why the intelligence service does not tell the inspectors something like this: "A grandma from Morrowind witnessed that the Iraq WMD are there and there. Go there and there and check it!". Who is endangered? Nobody.
Now, if the inspectors ignored such message then you would be right: they don't want to find anything. Otherwise, you will need to explain why do you think that they do not want to find anything.

3. The palaces are no more tabu. This excuse (not your excuse, the official excuse) is unusable now.

4. I know the argument about somebody being raped. But I consider it a false argument. The international affairs are something different from inter-people affairs. The difference consists in the concept of sovereignity. The countries are sovereigns. On the other hand, the citizens of a particular country are submitted to the same law. Therefore, it is clear that it is the raper who violates the law and, moreover, that the raper must count on your punching him (you will act according to the law).
On the other hand, it is not clear who violates the law if we exchange the raper and his victim by sovereign countries. As far as both countries obey the international law, you cannot tell who is the raper and who is the victim. No country on the earth is authorized to decide it. Not even the USA. This decision was delegated to UN by all UN members - including the USA.

5. Because we can? That's wrong, MagiK! Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a US action but a UN one! It's the UN who decides how to impose the terms of victory! And MagiK, we are speaking about one and half millions of deads here. We are speaking about three quarthers of million of dead children. Yes, "you" (the USA) can let the chilren die. "You" are enough strong to force others to see the chilred die. "You" can veto any attempt to alleviate their fate. But then don't be surprised at the image of the USA in the world.

6. The UN should be disbanded and forgotten? MagiK, do you know why the UN were created? To prevent future wars. To create an institute of the international law. To allow solving problems peacefully. Disband? Okay. And now? Replace UN by the USA? No, thanks.

Part of the reason the UN is 'powerless' is because a greater power exists: The US. Would the USA be able to give up its 'status' so to speak and abide by the decisions of the UN? Maybe not in the UN's present state.. but to move towards a true international community and have a true brotherhood of Nations, world government... that is what the USA must eventually do. Otherwise the UN will remain always as it is now.. useless.

Another option to move in that direction is for the USA to move fully in the direction of this 'world policemen' role. If the USA is going to be the policemen of the world, a role that should fully belong to the UN
Security Council, then perhaps the USA should just adopt some sort of 'Empire', 'Hegemony', or 'United Nations' label and start determining and handling the affairs of the UN itself.

[ 01-13-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[ 01-13-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#ffccff">Official Casulaty counts for the gulf war.

US forces. 147 killed, 457 wounded. And some of these were "friendly fire" (35 deaths, 72 wounded) cases.

Iraqi forces: estimates only are available since Iraq didn't have accurate counts to start with.

Dead: 750 - 1500 dead due to the Air Campaign.
Wounded: 2250 - 4500 due to the air campaign.
Civilian Dead: <100 in the Air Campaign.

71,000 Iraqi's taken prisoner in the ground war, of which only 2000 were wounded.

DIA esitmates show that 100,000 total Iraqi troops were killed in ground action, 300,000 troops wounded, 150,000 desertions and less than 200 total civilian deaths. no numbers listed for civilians wounded.

EDIT: Seems a far cry from the "millions" claimed by "some" people. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

[ 01-13-2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Actually, Russia and France only agreed to the SC resolution to force the return of the inspectors after they were promised their billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq would be honored in a post-Saddam Iraq. The Russian's also had to be assured the debt the Iraqi's ran up buying arms would be honored as well.

If we're trying to control that oil, we're going about it all wrong by promising it to others. :D

Lift the sanctions so Saddam can buy food for his people? If he isn't using the "oil for food" money now on food, what makes anyone think he would spend extra cash on food. He's using most of his limited money to feed the army and purchase military equipment, like the AA sites which are constantly being destroyed for "locking" onto coalition aircraft. He puts them in place, gives them orders that insure their destruction, and after the site is destroyed, he replaces it with a new one. That certainly costs money. I wonder how many bags of rice and flour could be purchased with the money just one of those sites costs? Quite a bit would be my guess. ;)

The sanctions aren't against food and medical supplies anyway. How would lifting the sanctions and allowing him to legally buy more weapons systems feed the Iraqi people? It wouldn't.

Saddam wasn't spending his oil money to feed his people and improve their standard of living prior to the Gulf War, and he hasn't spent and isn't spending the "oil for food" money on food for his people, so what makes anyone think lifting the sanctions and flooding him with oil money would result in anyone being fed?

[ 01-13-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ffccff">Great Post IR, it constantly amazes me athow people think Saddam is some kind of rational benevolent ruler. Like he would do something so silly as to spend food money on food for his people....</font>

1. The Desert Strom war was really based on a UN resolution. That's why it was legal. Therefore, US really got a permission from the UN. If you are speaking about the Desert Fox action, then it was an illegal act of aggression because it was not based on a UN decision.

2. They look in the wrong places... Now you are dodging, MagiK. We are not speaking about "know how", we are not speaking about pieces of information that must remain secret (like diplomatic encryption codes or the knowledge of the codes of others), we are not speaking about sources of that information or about methods of gaining it. We are speaking about information which we awfully need to publicize but which we cannot publicize for some reason. Consider these two situations:

Case 1: The CIA states that there is a storage of WMD below the Palace X.
We can believe it or we can not. We can ask how CIA knows it. Also, if we publicize the statement this way, the basement of Palace X will be emptied lightning fast.

Case 2: The CIA tells the inspectors that they should check the basement of Palace X. The inspectors go there unexpectedly, check the basement and state: "Yes, we have found WMD in the basement of Palace X. Here are the WMD" and show the WMD on the TV.
Now, it's hard not to believe that the basement of Palace X does not serve as a storage of WMD. The inspectors were there, checked it, and found the WMD.

As we can see, the current inspections are a powerful ally at our side because they allow us to publicize facts that we need to publicize. But they AREN'T our powerful ally! Why? Sorry, I cannot accept sentences like "Blix and Co. are pacifistic trolls" as an answer. It's no explanation. It's a war propaganda.
Also, you have added an obvious untruth. Where do you know from that the current inspections have found Mustard Gas? If it were so, MagiK, the inspections would be over, the UN resolution would be proclaimed and the war with Iraq would be going. Because Mustard Gas is a chemical WMD.

3. The palaces weren't searched? MagiK, who informs you about Iraq? The palaces are searched all the time! Please can you explain where you have got such false information?

4. Where have I stated that raping is okay, MagiK? You are trying to foist something I didn't say upon me.
As far as "your" (i.e., the USA) self-proclaimed role of the world's sheriff is considered, yes, "you" do it all the time and "you" force others to do the same. It's the law of the fist - something completely unacceptable in the civilized world. Civilized people use other ways of argumentation. A fist as an argument belongs to the lowest level pubs in slums and similar places.

5. My numbers are correct, MagiK. It's your numbers that are total nonsense in the better case. 200 deaths of civilians? MagiK, only the shelter in Baghdad that was bombed "mistakenly" during the Desert Storm war contained much more civilians! "200 deaths" is a plain lie.
Next, I would like to turn your attention to one interview with M. Albright in one well known TV programme. She was asked whether the half a million dead children in Iraq were worth it. She replied: "Yes, we think it's worth it". The reply shocked the whole world. This was, IIRC, in 1995. Now, we have year 2003. Be sure that the number of dead children did not decrease since then. Quite the opposite.
As far at my supposed "lecturing" is concerned, you are mistaking argumentation for "lecturing". I am not about to "lecture" anybody.

To Ronn_Bman. You are repeating the standard propaganda about Saddam not allowing his people to feed. If you want to know the reality then check, for example pages of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck (http://www.notinournames.org).
Note: D. Halliday was the first UN administrator of the "Oil for Food" programme. H. von Sponeck was the second UN administrator of the same programme. Therefore, both D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck are people that know what are they speaking about. Both of them abdicated after finding out what the programme really is.

<font color=lime>Radek, I really do not know where you get your ideas from. They appear not to resemble reality at all. Buit I am going to try one more time to answer your questions.

1. You are just using semantics, the USA would have gone and executed Desert Storm no matter what the UN says. The UN is not the arbiter of everything legal and illegal. The US. has acknowledged no binding subjugation to the UN legal system...not that there is one.

2. Your in ability to understand that the very nature of a piece of information being able to be traced back to a source indicates you really need to read more about how intelligence works (I worked in Intelligence for 10 years, so I do know just a little of what I am talking about).

Your assertion that the Inspectors are an ally on our side is silly. The inspectors are innefective because they telegraph their intent hours ahead of time, so that any site they do visit the site is well prepared for their arrival. (It isnt hard to spot a convoy of White UN vehicles kicking up dust in Iraq)

The presidential palaces are not single buildings, they are not multiple buildings, they are entire areas of space, the one in the north that I am most concerned with is several thousand acres large with unknown amounts of under ground facilities tunnled into the mountasins, it is known to be an extensive system though. NO UN inspector to date has come within a hundred miles of the place.

As for questioning my truthfulness, I was a bit insulted by this.. the Mustard Gas was found by the current group of inspectors and reported in international news journals. They found the Artillery Shells used to deliver it and the Gas right where the last group of inspectors left them So please do not accuse me of telling lies unless you have incontrovertible proof that I am. I may ocassionally be misinformed, but I do not lie in these forums.

3. Please produce one document from the inspectors detailing their search of a presidential palace. The Presidential palaces have not been searched, nor are they "Searched All the time" that statement was ridiculous. There isn't any site in Iraq that is searched "all the time".

4. On this point you completely missed my point and did not understand what I said at all. Either english is not your first language, in which case its no big deal, or you are just trying to twist the subject.

5. My numbers are those accepted by the UN...where do you get yours? Oh and don't go claiming that all of the casualties are due to american or coalition forces..remember those pretty CNN films of thousands of tracer rounds being shot into the sky by Iraqi anti-aircraft weapons? Guess where those rounds came down? Right int he middle of population centers. When you shoot into the air..the bullets come back down and can still kill. My numbers are correct. ours are in error. (correct being a reletive term since none of the numbers are gouing to be exact.)

6. You didn't have a 6th point...but you are starting to remind me of a certain someone on this forum that I have not seen in a while...all you need to do is throw in an Ad homm and or a straw man and the connection would be complete.

</font>

Remember, when things get heated, it's wise to take a break before posting.

Well said Magik.

Did you guys know that the guitarist in my band is the son of Richard Butler, the Australian who was head of UN weapons inspections in Iraq for a fair while, and was the most hated man in Iraq during that time. Effigies were made of him and burned.

Anyhow, I'm siding with you and Ronn on this one Magik.

Love point six btw. ;) :D

Er,,,I havent posted in this thread yet [img]tongue.gif[/img] Unless IR is someone else..I dont see anyone else in this thread that has IR for their intials though.. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=lime> WHOOPS! My BAd Iron Ranger [img]smile.gif[/img] You make excellent posts too, but I ment to indicate my agreement with B-Mann in this instance.

<h1>I Wish to acknowledge an <font color=red>error</font> I made. I was wrong when I said no Presidential Palaces have been searched. Apparently 4 or 5 have been searched. Smaller ones in and around Baghdad, but NOT the one in the north that covers a huge tract of land.</h1>

Note the big letters in my admission of error, some people have said that I never admit them....this should be noticable ;) </font>

I'm in the same side that Radek. Actually the only countries which can stop to the United States are the EU. The muslims countries havent got the same ideas that occidentals countries, if they have it then they were westerns countries.
Here in europe the people dont want more war, like the last century, and the last, and the last... here in the past we had dictadors who killed a lot of people. I think United States didnt have any dictador and they cant see they actually have one. Bush, I mean the people who get the power there, does that he want to. He want to get the oil control in the world, Why dont let that poor countries have the control in the oil?, This would be the best reason for they gain more money, I think Bush has fear, 'cause they wouldnt be puppets then. Like the european old kings and lords, they didnt wish that the people didnt go to the school 'cause then they would know why they have this problem and how get the solutions.

Shaide

<font color=orange>Were do you get off calling Bush a dictator? Last I looked, he won the election fair and square, according to the rules under which we hold our elections. Every President we have ever elected won under those same base rules! That doesn't sound like a dictator to me.

Here is the definition of Dictator taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online):

1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
2 : one that dictates

Don't forget that Bush can't do anything by himself! The House and Senate must go along as well. He has had support from both parties there. If there were a vote today on whether or not to go to war with Iraq today, then the vote would be to go to war! Those are the facts in the US.

As far as the poor people in the world controlling the oil, well most countries that control the oil are rather rich! Just look at the Middle East. All the countries that control the oil have a farily high standard of living (with the possible exception of Iraq and had Saddam not invade Kuwait then they'd have a high standard of living too!). So are you suggesting that all those countries turn their oil revenue over to the poor nations of the world?... Righhhtttt... Like that's going to happen. Get real!

Why would the US or Bush for that matter care if the rest of the world had an education? That makes no sense what so ever! Let's face it. The US would stand to make a hell of a lot of money if the rest of the world were more educated. Education, means more jobs, means more money, means more money to SPEND... possibly on items made in the USA... or China... or Japan... or God forbid the EU! We'd like to see the world's standard of living come up. Save us a lot of tax dollars that we could be spending at home. We wouldn't be feeding the world then.

Rant over! (gets off his soapbox). </font>

Well, When I said Bush, I mean the Bush's administration, and when I said dictador, this is a mistake, I wanted to mean "like dictador" (sorry) ¬_¬!
Well Sir Taliesin, I must say something: Hitler elected won too. But the german people used to think like Hitler, this is the real danger, then what's wrong?... Is the people thinking like Bush's administration in this country?, or are they doing that they want to without the citizen?. I hope Bush's administration are doing that they want to, else the world have other danger, like happend in the past with German. I know the USA citizen are intelligents and they dont want more wars, but they have a president with low intelligence, and I know that He havent got any power, he is a puppet, like all presidents in the world, and all persons know it.

Shaide

<font color=orange>Do you consider George Bush to be of low intelligence, because you don't agree with his policies or do you know something the rest of us don't? As for being a puppet, just who is he a puppet to? Again, do you know something that the rest of us don't know? If so, then why don't you let us all in on the secret.

Since you don't seem to like George Bush, just who would you have voted for in the Presidental elections, if you could have voted?</font>

I'm repeating what makes sense. Just because it's on the news doesn't necessarily make it propaganda. ;)

If he has the money to continually buy grossly expensive weapons, then he should be spending that money on food for his people. The UN inspectors say he's been buying conventional weapons and possibly equipment for WMD based on what they've found so far, and he's certainly been buying AA sites(if not he wouldn't have any left). It doesn't make sense to believe it's ok for him to spend money that way, while his people starve.

The people on your site don't say Saddam isn't spending money for weapons that he should be spending on food, so I repeat, if he isn't spending the money he already has for food when his people are starving, and he wasn't spending money to feed the starving before the sanctions, why would anyone think that giving him more money would change the fact that Iraqi's are starving.

I have a hard time believing the anti-war lobby believes in trickle down economics. :D

The only way they'll all be fed is if international humanitarian groups go in and feed them. Of course feeding his population for him, while allowing Saddam to spend his money on military might and personal fortunes just isn't going to happen.

[ 01-17-2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

The 'millions' count those dead due to the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Among the goods that Iraq can't import is choride - because it is easy to transform to a deadly gas. However it is also a vital component in water-purification, and as a result of the sanction water-borne diseases increased dramaticly.

<font color="#ffccff">Errr Radek, could you possibly have picked a more biased and less likely to be objective sourceof news? I hardly think so. </font>

The 'millions' count those dead due to the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Among the goods that Iraq can't import is choride - because it is easy to transform to a deadly gas. However it is also a vital component in water-purification, and as a result of the sanction water-borne diseases increased dramaticly.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">Can you give me a link or something to where these statistics are being compiled? I tried finding it on my sources and at the UN sites but no one seems to be actually tracking the numbers you are talking about. :(

I am sure you blame the deaths if any on the US and UN sanctions...but how is it that Saddam has money enough to maintain his military and he is still buying equipment from russia...wouldnt it be better to blame the guy who is misappropriating the money?</font>

[ 01-20-2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

The problem I have with the sanction is that the hit the wrong people (and as the example with chorine shows, Iraq can't buy what it needs to purify water) - and as you said, Saddam can still get hold of some weaponry. But Iraq's armed forces have been scaled down from 1.000.000+ at the time of the Gulf War to around 350.000(?) today. Secondly - Iraq (and Saddam) does not control what the money from the oil-for-food program is used for. A lot of it was used to pay war-reparations to Kuwait. So Iraq smuggles oil and buys what it feels it need for the money.

And I sure Saddam can think of a very good reason to maintain his military - the forign 'horde' standing on the border ;)

P.S. Got the number (ca. 1.5 million) from a very reliable radio-program - so I don't have a written scource.

P.P.S. What weapons from Russia??

Magik is correct on the Iraqi military make up. The majority of equipment is Soviet, or Chinese modified Soviet. A small bit is French.

Ar-Cuinin you are right. The sanction to irak is wrong, like other countries.
Why Cuba or Irak has a sanction?. Why Sudafrica not?, They attacked angolia, and the united states didnt do anything. They say that Irak has destruccion massive weapons (The inspectors havent found any), but USA have this weapons too. Well Inspectors have found weapons, well it's true if other country say that they will attack, you must defend.
Irak its the country who get the money for themself, for education, and others. And they dont like USA, and they sell the oil more expensive, the oil is them, they can sell more expensive to USA if they want to. USA sell weapons to other countries more expensive to get more money, and any country attack them.
What's wrong then? Usa is in crisis before 11 of september, and if they'll get the irak's oil, then they will be better. Moreover in summer 2001 the United States of America said that they will attack to Afganistan and irak, but they havent any reasons to attack them, and two month more late was the 11 of September... what does mean? I dont know...
I must say one more thing...
Do you remember 1969? Usa wanted to attack Cuba. USA did a plan, they would attack some places in Miami, they would destroy any US airplanes when this planes would fly on Cuba, and they would say that Cuban attacked in first time, the world would say: Cuba is guilty, and they would attack this country with world help.
Moreover in the 19th century, USA blowed up an USA's ship near Cuban's beach, for steal this island to us (Spain) and they said that we attacked United States of America, but Cuban wanted to be free, without Spain and USA.
What is your opinion?

SHAIDE

Not true. Although for decades the sinking of the Maine was thought to have been due to attack, later evidence determined it was caused by an explosion in the ammunition storage chamber, which set off a chain reaction thus destroying the Maine.

It wasn't purposely destroyed to give cause in Cuba and wasn't needed as a cause. Dead American's and threatened economic interests had already provided cause.

I don't claim the US was being completely altruistic in helping Cuba revolt against Spain, but the Cubans were freed of Spanish rule as they hoped, and did benefit under US administration, and were given their freedom from the US without revolution.

EDIT - In 1976, Adm. Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy mounted yet another investigation into the cause of the Maine disaster. His team of experts found that the ship's demise was self-inflicted--likely the result of a coal bunker fire. There are those, however, who still maintain that an external blast was to blame. Some people, it seems, just won't let you forget the Maine.

Source

[ 01-21-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

The US was in crisis before September 11th? That's weird, I live in the US, and I didn't hear about it. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

The economy was slumping headed to recession. That certainly isn't good news, but it is far from a crisis. The economy is cyclic. It has ups followed by downs and that's just the way it works, so crisis? Not hardly.

How will the US "be better", in the sense of your crisis statement, after an Iraqi war? We won't get their oil unless we buy it. Even if US troops march down the streets of Bhagdad we won't get to keep any of their oil.

Could you provide links to the US threats against Afghanistan prior to September 11th? I don't remember any, and Afghanistan doesn't have any oil, so what would the purpose have been? ;)

As far as Iraq, I remember that being talked about in the Spring, but guess what? Saddam had been in violation of UN sanctions for a decade, so it shouldn't be too surprising. Maybe you should be upset with him for not feeding his people? He's a dictator, so it's his country. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As to the sanctions starving people, see my earlier post. :D

Actually, I'm not familiar with this at all and not sure I understand what you're saying. Could you give a few more details and maybe some links to information?

<font color="#ffccff">I can't find any battle plans from 1969 that detail faking an attack on miami so we could attack cuba...and I can't find any plans or operations from 1969 showing nay US interest in attacking Cuba.

Shaid you just make things up as you go. Come back with facts and we will listen to you. So far I have counted 4 times that you have completely twisted history to suit your self or just plain made the stuff up. Give some soruces please.</font>

You want links..
http://mx.geocities.com/cencoalt/110901/bombings.htm
http://mx.geocities.com/cencoalt/110901/who.htm
http://mx.geocities.com/cencoalt/110901/sospecha.htm
http://mx.geocities.com/cencoalt/110901/internet.htm
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/
http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/docs/index.php3
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/08/24/35201.html
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/hernandez.html
There are in english, french, spanish and german.

Interesting reading although not terribly impressive, and it says nothing to back your historical points regarding the Maine and the unknown '69 Cuba/Florida invasion plan you mention.

Links 3, 4, 5, and 6 aren't in English, so I can't really comment. :(

Although I will say number 6 in French appears to be part of the conspiracy theory about 9/11, and therefore, is most likely garbage since people actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon and not a missle.

So I ask again about your example of the 1969 plan in Cuba?

In the book: "The big lie", the writers show us some documents about it (Florida attack), I've read the book, but actually I havent find any links, when I will get the book again, and I'll can show us it. Those documents are very interesting "unclaimed document" I remember.

I dont want to say that USA is a bad nation (usa has good things), else I try to show objective news, because in the Medias (like CNN, European TVs and Muslims news) arent objective they say that they want to. I mean I wish objetive news.

Shaide

Oh come on! It will be defacto ownership with the US playing the part of the highly paid 'Milker' and Iraq the 'Cow'. What's more, once the US is in control of production, it simply turns up the taps - which reduces world oil prices...

<font color="#ffccff">
Umm Shaide
None of those links proves anything you said.
The Geocities ones are useless flap from nobody's.
the ones not in english I cant read so don't know what they say
and the others that I can read are obviously slanted and biased
but still do not prove anyo of the incredible claims you made.

The Big Lie is a conspiracy nut theory, might as well put up links to
the Men in black, Roswell, The Grassy Knoll and the Black Helicopters too.

Out of curiosity, would It be accurate to call you Eisen-Dram-Shaide?
</font>

[ 01-22-2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Oh come on! It will be defacto ownership with the US playing the part of the highly paid 'Milker' and Iraq the 'Cow'. What's more, once the US is in control of production, it simply turns up the taps - which reduces world oil prices...</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">Welcome aboard Skunk!

Now that that is out of the way you are soooo wrong. France and Russia will be the big Oil Winners. They are the ones who own most of the Oil hardware in Iraq. At worst the New Iraq will belong to OPEC which is NOT governed by the US but by Arabs (OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). </font>