Heh!?!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Skunk, you are simply unlearned on this issue. The several American vessels patrolling the Iraqi waters catch: 1. Outbound illegal (i.e. against the oil-for-food program) oil, and 2. Inbound weapons All the time!! Every few days!! If they are starving, why's that petty despot sending perfectly good oil out for something other than food and against UN Sanctions????

Do you work for no money? Why do you expect the Iraqi sewage workers, Garbage workers etc to work for no cash? Iraq HAS sell oil outside the sanctions or the entire system will collapse - more civilians will die from sickness and disease if you don't pay these guys (for example).
Inbound weapons - well, do the police in your area have no guns at their disposal? What about the army? So why not Iraq?[/QUOTE]Simply answered: After SH and Iraq ignored the one sacred rule of the UN and attacked a neighboring SOVEREIGN (note: for the simple reason that it was selling oil too cheap and would not pay SH a $10billion bribe), the UN placed in under sanctions. The one governing body saw fit to place restrictions on the country for being a bad country only 10 years ago. No, they don't get an army, just like Japan after WWII.

You're probably one of these people who are actually HAPPY Germany never paid the tens of millions in remunerations assessed to it after Nurenburg.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: 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

If the '69 Cuba attack info comes from the same book that claims the US attacked itself with missles on 9/11, I'll have to throw it onto the conspiracy list.

The desire for objective news is fine, but objective should be just that...objective. The sources you choose to believe aren't objective simply because they are outrageous and contrary to the existing proof. In fact, they are more baised because they completely bypass facts in order to espouse a view.

I do believe that there are times when skunks are not varmits but actually Trolls in disguise [img]graemlins/spam3.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

You're probably one of these people who are actually HAPPY Germany never paid the tens of millions in remunerations assessed to it after Nurenburg.

Of course I am!
Any idiot can tell you that it was DIRECTLY as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (where Germany was had to pay HUGE war reparations) that led to the rise of the Nazi party and caused WWII.

Fortunately, the allies had learned from their mistake - and Germany is today a peaceful, democratic liberal nation.

[Shaide]

If Saddam insists on spending his money on illegal items, maybe he should focus on pumps, the supplies for salinization, and the other items you mention as being necessary. He has been quite effective at smuggling, so why doesn't he do that? Because he doesn't want to. He prefers weapons.

You must remember.... who is the country with the biggest army in the world?.
Is obviously since 90's Iraq was bombed, they must defend, then they buy weapons.

[Shaide]

In the book: "The big lie", the author has never said that the Twin towers attack was with missiles, else with airplanes, the attack with missiles was on the Pentagon, because the airplane never saw it.

Moreover, I prefer Eisen-Maiden-Shaide

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: Name address and phone number of an Iraqi citizen who can confirm that they did indeed receive the food, and that it has not been confiscated or taken back? Well a nuclear, chemical and biological program is quite enough to cause a US led attack. The UN resolution does say that the burden is on Iraq to prove that they have disarmed, they have not done this and even Hans blix has been saying that the Iraqi's are not being forthcoming. I repeat, the burden of proof lies on Iraq as the defeated combatant of a war to prove its disarmament.

Sorry - I must have mislaid my Iraqi phonebook [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yes - UN resolution 1441 was very cleverly formulated - because it is ofcourse impossible for Iraq to prove that they have disarmed 100%

P.S. And Magik - I read your post (EDIT: and now your pm [img]smile.gif[/img] ) in Cloudy's yesterday - I was my own fault for posting here when was 'semi-consious' [img]graemlins/reallyroll.gif[/img]

[ 01-23-2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: quote: If Saddam insists on spending his money on illegal items, maybe he should focus on pumps, the supplies for salinization, and the other items you mention as being necessary. He has been quite effective at smuggling, so why doesn't he do that? Because he doesn't want to. He prefers weapons.

You must remember.... who is the country with the biggest army in the world?.

China

Is obviously since 90's Iraq was bombed, they must defend, then they buy weapons.

Since the end of the Gulf War the only Iraqi sites that have been bombed have been military sites, primarily illegal AA sites, bombed by coalition forces. The Iraqi's have been warned repeatedly not to "lock on" to coalition aircraft, or they will be destroyed.

The Iraqi's, at the height of their power, were no match for the coalition, and buying weapons in violation of the cease fire agreement with the UN isn't going to get them ready this time. They are not allowed to do it to do it.

His people are starving because Saddam is wasting money on military items instead of buying food. Which do you think he should buy? Is it ok to waste money on the military instead of feeding the population?[/QUOTE]

[ 01-23-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Shaide: In the book: "The big lie", the author has never said that the Twin towers attack was with missiles, else with airplanes, the attack with missiles was on the Pentagon, because the airplane never saw it. Moreover, I prefer Eisen-Maiden-Shaide

The "attack with missles" is The Biggest Lie because it never happened. The Pentagon was hit by a commercial passenger plane , and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses who saw the plane hit.

The author of that book has no proof it was a missle, but there are thousands of witnesses who say it was a plane, and there is radar data that says it was a plane.

If you don't believe it was a plane because you haven't seen a video, then you can't believe it was a missle because you haven't seen a video, right?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: You're probably one of these people who are actually HAPPY Germany never paid the tens of millions in remunerations assessed to it after Nurenburg.

Of course I am!
Any idiot can tell you that it was DIRECTLY as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (where Germany was had to pay HUGE war reparations) that led to the rise of the Nazi party and caused WWII.

Fortunately, the allies had learned from their mistake - and Germany is today a peaceful, democratic liberal nation.[/QUOTE]Maybe one day the same will be said of Iraq.