🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:08:05 -0400, "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net>
wrote:

>Millions of people around the world last weekend demonstrated against a war on Iraq.

  Millions more stayed home, went to work or died in everyday
accidents.
>
>There was no mistaking the message: No war.

  No too mention the apathy. After all, for everyone there, ten times
that number weren't.
>
>But, particularly with the airwaves and op-ed pages dominated by war-mongers who mock and mischaracterize the burgeoning peace movement, there remains a need to continually reiterate the common-sense reasons to oppose a war. Here are a dozen:
>
>1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.

  Of course not. But it's a threat to the rest of the region.
>
>
>2. Iraq is deterrable.

     No, Iraq is oppressed by a brutal dictator. Saddam doesn't give a
rats ass about his people. So he doesn't care if they suffer in the
streets. He's got his screw the others.
>
>
>3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of war.

   See above
>
>4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

  The US did no massive military shit during the "Clinker" years, but
we had many of our people murdered in terrorists attacks anyway.
>
>A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

  And I thought you said, that Iraq had no connection to Al-qaeda, yet
you say they'll join in?? How odd!
>
>5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.

   So are civilians..
>
>
>
>6. Inspections can work.

  Yes, they can. If those who are being inspected, would not move the
evidence. As has been reported.
>
>
>7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.

   And you pay the consequences for stupidity.
>
>
>8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law and humanity.

      See the answer to #1
>
>
>9. Reject empire.

   Like the British Empire?
>
>10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.

  No shit. And we're not taking revenge. where you got THAT idea, I
can only guess what you're smoking is damn good!
>
>
>11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.

   No shit, oh, you think this is about oil too? Sad, I get a good
chuckle out of fools that think 2% of what we used to buy from Saddam,
is why we're going back in..
>
>
>12. Iraqi lives are at stake.

   So are Saudis, Jews, Kuwaitis, Ameican, British, Candian, Chinese,
Japanese, Austrailians, Africans, Russians, French, Germans....
>

Yo,

First of all,.i didn't write the 12 reasons,..i'll see if i can dig out the
link for you though.


>There was no mistaking the message: No war.

 >> No too mention the apathy. After all, for everyone there, ten times
>>that number weren't.

So you're saying many millions more are actually opposed to the war as well?
Not sure what you mean there.


>1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.

  >>Of course not. But it's a threat to the rest of the region.

Well let me see,..Turkey and Isreal are concerned but who else are you
talking about?  Most of what i've read seems to indicate that the neighbors
are against the war because of the consequences to them.

>2. Iraq is deterrable.

 >>    No, Iraq is oppressed by a brutal dictator. Saddam doesn't give a
rats ass about his people. So he doesn't care if they suffer in the
streets. He's got his screw the others.

Ya,..he is a nutcase for sure,..but he's been dettered for 10 year now
hasn't he?   Hmmm,...good thing we're thinking about the people eh.  It's
either be ruled by a dictator or killed in a massive bombing campaign.

>4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

 >> The US did no massive military shit during the "Clinker" years, but
>>we had many of our people murdered in terrorists attacks anyway.

Well maybe the US shouldn't piss so many people off.  :-)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html


>A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new
inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other terrorist
groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of terrorism, either
on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

  >>And I thought you said, that Iraq had no connection to Al-qaeda, yet
>>you say they'll join in?? How odd!

While i didn't say that,..i do agree with it.  Do you think that terrorists
are all going to ignore the war?  You do know that Sadamn and Al-qaeda are
basically moral enemies do you not?,..that is unless the US gives them a
common enemy.   Sadamn is a secular leader and Al-qaeda is dead-set against
that concept.  Al-qaeda wants a pan-islamic world ruled by the Sharia.
Sadamn is everything they hate.  But having a common enemy would certainly
bring them together. Kinda of like how the Allies teamed up with their enemy
Russia in WW2.

>6. Inspections can work.

  >>Yes, they can. If those who are being inspected, would not move the
>>evidence. As has been reported.

I guess my biggest reason is that while i do think they should be disarmed,
i don't see the need to go in and level the country because they're not
doing it fast enough to satisfy the US.  Why the rush?  Sure it would remove
Sadamn but it basically punishes the people for the crimes of Sadamn.  From
what i can see, most countries of the world want to see a non-war solution.
ARe you saying the rest of the world doesn't have a valid opinion and that
whatever the US says is the way it is?

>9. Reject empire.

  >> Like the British Empire?

Huh?  Ya,.i guess just like the British Empire which most of the world
decided they didn't want to rule them.  The lucky countries got out of the
Empire peacefully but some had to fight their way out. (USA)

>11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.

>>   No shit, oh, you think this is about oil too? Sad, I get a good
>>chuckle out of fools that think 2% of what we used to buy from Saddam,
i>> s why we're going back in..

I'm sorry the concept of oil economics escapes you.  Besides the fact that
Iraq has a lot more then 2% of the world oil reserves,..oil is running out.
Now i don't mean running out in the sense that the taps are running
dry,..but the world's oil reserves that are economically feasible to remove
are getting less and less each year.  In other words,..it's getting more and
more expensive to reach the oil that is there.  And the world doesn't
actually have to run out of oil for it to cause problems,..all we need is
the "threat" of less oil to screw the world economic system.  The major oil
companies have recognized the dwindling supplies and British Petroleum
recently changed it's logo "BP" to stand for "Beyond Petroleum".  I don't
really have time or the desire to get into an oil debate right now because
it emcompasses so many other factors besides the current situation in the
middle east.  There's a lot on the net about this and "Scientific American"
has done some great articles on the world oil supply that are very
interesting reading.  Oil is very interesting is the sense that there are so
many variables involved.  I know that until i did a lot of reading regarding
oil, i thought it was a simple little supply and demand problem like you do.
And just so you know,...most of what i know about oil and how it affects
world economics came from oil companies and oil research scientists,..not
Greenpeace.  :-)

>
>12. Iraqi lives are at stake.

>>   So are Saudis, Jews, Kuwaitis, Ameican, British, Candian, Chinese,
>>Japanese, Austrailians, Africans, Russians, French, Germans....

Oh,..how so?  The countries participating in the war maybe but some of those
countries you listed have quite a different view.

Hey,..i just found the link to the site containing the 12 reasons.
http://counterpunch.org/

have a good one eh

12 Reasons to wipe Iraq off the map


1. Iraq is a threat to the United States.
 
2. Iraq is not deterrable.

3. Iraq's threat to the United States is not only in event of war.

4. Other terrorist risks are not dependent on event of war as proven on 9/11.

5. U.S. citizens are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack regardless of war.

6. Inspections cannot work.
 
7. Common sense says: Err on the side of preemption of attack on your citizens.

8. The doctrine of preventative war protects international law and humanity.

9. Reject the false argument of empire.

10. Revenge for long-term aggression is a legitimate motive for war.

11. Reject the simplistic argument that an attack has anything to do with oil.

12. Western world lives are at stake.

On 26 Feb 2003 16:04:19 -0800, keithp@rocketmail.com (Keith P.) wrote:

>12 Reasons to wipe Iraq off the map
>
>
>1. Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Not likely
> 
>2. Iraq is not deterrable.

OK
>
>3. Iraq's threat to the United States is not only in event of war.

Not Likely
>
>4. Other terrorist risks are not dependent on event of war as proven on 9/11.

True
>
>5. U.S. citizens are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack regardless of war.

As are the Israelis etc
>
>6. Inspections cannot work.

Your view
> 
>7. Common sense says: Err on the side of preemption of attack on your citizens.

Wow!
>
>8. The doctrine of preventative war protects international law and humanity.

What?
>
>9. Reject the false argument of empire.

Why?
>
>10. Revenge for long-term aggression is a legitimate motive for war.

If you r last name is....B U S H!
>
>11. Reject the simplistic argument that an attack has anything to do with oil.

Why?

>
>12. Western world lives are at stake.

Not if there is no war!

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:48:22 -0400, "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net>
wrote:

>Yo,
>
>First of all,.i didn't write the 12 reasons,..i'll see if i can dig out the
>link for you though.

  I know you didn't, but since you posted them......
>
>
>>There was no mistaking the message: No war.
>
> >> No too mention the apathy. After all, for everyone there, ten times
>>>that number weren't.
>
>So you're saying many millions more are actually opposed to the war as well?
>Not sure what you mean there.

  No, just saying that there were more who either DID support a war,
or didn't care if there WAS a war.
>
>
>>1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.
>
>  >>Of course not. But it's a threat to the rest of the region.
>
>Well let me see,..Turkey and Isreal are concerned but who else are you
>talking about?  Most of what i've read seems to indicate that the neighbors
>are against the war because of the consequences to them.

  No, they are against leaving Saddam alone.
>
>>2. Iraq is deterrable.
>
> >>    No, Iraq is oppressed by a brutal dictator. Saddam doesn't give a
>rats ass about his people. So he doesn't care if they suffer in the
>streets. He's got his screw the others.
>
>Ya,..he is a nutcase for sure,..but he's been dettered for 10 year now
>hasn't he?   Hmmm,...good thing we're thinking about the people eh.  It's
>either be ruled by a dictator or killed in a massive bombing campaign.

  No, he hasn't been deterred, he's been watched over like a hawk with
our (And british and Canadian) air patrols. Not too mention, he's
denied inspections for years. More then enough time to hide alot of
stuff.

  And I suggest you wonder where it is exactly we'll bomb? Downtown or
military sites? How would it affect civilians?
>
>>4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.
>
> >> The US did no massive military shit during the "Clinker" years, but
>>>we had many of our people murdered in terrorists attacks anyway.
>
>Well maybe the US shouldn't piss so many people off.  :-)
>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

  And just how do we do that?

  We offer a better life to many, do you see the number of people
coming legally and illegally to this country? Is this how we piss them
off? No, it's some nutcase that thinks we're some sort of devil, but
he convinces some ignorant people to slaughter thousands for a
"Religious" cause.
>
>
>>A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new
>inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other terrorist
>groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of terrorism, either
>on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.
>
>  >>And I thought you said, that Iraq had no connection to Al-qaeda, yet
>>>you say they'll join in?? How odd!
>
>While i didn't say that,..i do agree with it.  Do you think that terrorists
>are all going to ignore the war?  You do know that Sadamn and Al-qaeda are
>basically moral enemies do you not?,..that is unless the US gives them a
>common enemy.   Sadamn is a secular leader and Al-qaeda is dead-set against
>that concept.  Al-qaeda wants a pan-islamic world ruled by the Sharia.
>Sadamn is everything they hate.  But having a common enemy would certainly
>bring them together. Kinda of like how the Allies teamed up with their enemy
>Russia in WW2.

  How is Al-qadea and Saddam, moral enemies? They both dislike the
west and such. So tell me how they are moral enemies.
>
>>6. Inspections can work.
>
>  >>Yes, they can. If those who are being inspected, would not move the
>>>evidence. As has been reported.
>
>I guess my biggest reason is that while i do think they should be disarmed,
>i don't see the need to go in and level the country because they're not
>doing it fast enough to satisfy the US.  Why the rush?  Sure it would remove
>Sadamn but it basically punishes the people for the crimes of Sadamn.  From
>what i can see, most countries of the world want to see a non-war solution.

  First of all, we're not "Leveling a country" Sheesh.

  Selected strikes against military targets. Not civilians There's no
way civilians would be killed, UNLESS saddam moves them to those
places and uses them as "HUman Shields" Like he did before.

  And we're not punishing the civilians for Saddams deeds, sheesh...

>ARe you saying the rest of the world doesn't have a valid opinion and that
>whatever the US says is the way it is?

  No, but I am saying that when the first military action came about,
there were more then 50 countries willing to lend aid and support.
However, we didn't do what we should have then.

 >
>>9. Reject empire.
>
>  >> Like the British Empire?
>
>Huh?  Ya,.i guess just like the British Empire which most of the world
>decided they didn't want to rule them.  The lucky countries got out of the
>Empire peacefully but some had to fight their way out. (USA)

  Yes, bad joke, thought the original author was being an idiot with
this crap.
>
>>11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.
>
>>>   No shit, oh, you think this is about oil too? Sad, I get a good
>>>chuckle out of fools that think 2% of what we used to buy from Saddam,
>i>> s why we're going back in..
>
>I'm sorry the concept of oil economics escapes you.  Besides the fact that
>Iraq has a lot more then 2% of the world oil reserves,..oil is running out.

  No, reread what I said. We used to BUY 2% of our supply from him.
And he's only got what he's got, but he doesn't have all that much.

  In addition, OPEC is where most of the oil is flowing out of and is
CONTROLLED by them. So no member nation can "Sell off the market"
without gaining some rather nasty responses.

>Now i don't mean running out in the sense that the taps are running
>dry,..but the world's oil reserves that are economically feasible to remove
>are getting less and less each year.  In other words,..it's getting more and
>more expensive to reach the oil that is there.  And the world doesn't
>actually have to run out of oil for it to cause problems,..all we need is
>the "threat" of less oil to screw the world economic system. 

  Quite true I agree. 


> The major oil
>companies have recognized the dwindling supplies and British Petroleum
>recently changed it's logo "BP" to stand for "Beyond Petroleum".  I don't
>really have time or the desire to get into an oil debate right now because
>it emcompasses so many other factors besides the current situation in the
>middle east.  There's a lot on the net about this and "Scientific American"
>has done some great articles on the world oil supply that are very
>interesting reading.  Oil is very interesting is the sense that there are so
>many variables involved.  I know that until i did a lot of reading regarding
>oil, i thought it was a simple little supply and demand problem like you do.
>And just so you know,...most of what i know about oil and how it affects
>world economics came from oil companies and oil research scientists,..not
>Greenpeace.  :-)
>

  I will agree, there's alot of varibles. But many are minor. However,
the flow wouldn't be interuppted by this war.
>>
>>12. Iraqi lives are at stake.
>
>>>   So are Saudis, Jews, Kuwaitis, Ameican, British, Candian, Chinese,
>>>Japanese, Austrailians, Africans, Russians, French, Germans....
>
>Oh,..how so?  The countries participating in the war maybe but some of those
>countries you listed have quite a different view.

  Is Saddam is left alone, to develop the weapons he desires...You
see?
>
>Hey,..i just found the link to the site containing the 12 reasons.
>http://counterpunch.org/
>
>have a good one eh
>
  Already read it...Thanks though.