BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people should pretend their opinions have changed, temporarily or permanently, under our current circumstances. However, we can keep in mind that some times are better than others for almost all things. Remember the immortal words of Rodney King.



(Some peacenicks verbally accosted some cub scouts I know yesterday.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:37 PM

Mahatma Ghandi and Jesus were peacenicks. Buddha too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:39 PM

It is a very honorable thing to be a peacenick. I meant nothing derogatory by the term. It was necessary to explain the setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:42 PM

And - - oh MAN - you did it again. YOU SPELLED Gandhi WITH A GH!!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM

Right. Gandhi. Thanks. Ghag me with a spoon, eh? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:28 PM

Little Hawk, when you disconnect your brain and make dumb statements what do you expect? You have a good mind, a little mixed up it's true, but we're working on that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:06 AM

Well Greg - knew you'd like it - LOL -

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:30 AM

SteveBro, thanks for sharing Danielle's letter. She has my respect and my thanks givings for her safety.

luvyakat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:27 AM

and just in case this has not been been linked to before, for those that still think that this is about weapons of mass destruction and bringing Democracy to Iraq, a little info on
Power Brokering in the Middle East

The players in this game couldn't care less about the plight of the average Iraqi as long as they have control.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:30 AM

Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus were peace nicks. Buddha too.

Lh,if your implying that Nortons daughter or any military are not Christ like,or not following their God, would the Old Testament support your peace nicks claim about Jesus and his Father? I'm referring to the amount of smiting/smoting God commanded.

As for Norton his daughter has my thanks and respect, here is a woman admitting to her fear and still doing her duty, that has to be admired.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

The Old Testament doesn't say anything at all about Jesus. Jesus preached love and goodwill. Most Christian theologians view the commandments in the New Testament to override those of the Old, so it is not, in fact, divinely permissible to go around smiting people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:35 AM

I am implying nothing of the sort, Ireland. I respect Norton's daughter, and wish her well. I hope she comes back safe and sound. Ditto for the other young men and women serving overseas. My criticism was for the USA political leaders, not for the individual soldiers or the general public.

As for "peacenick", I was simply reacting to the word "peacenick" itself, which is usually used as a term of abuse these days. (As if it was somehow wrongful and cowardly for people to ever argue in the direction of peace...) So, you have mistaken the intent of my reaction. It had nothing to do with Steve's daughter.

The differences between the Old Testament and the New are striking indeed, and I am not very well impressed by the Old Testament. I am very well impressed by Jesus and his life and mission. That does not mean I necessarily consider the Bible (either Old or New Testament) to be an infallible source of information. I do not. I think the Bible as it presently exists has been altered, edited by the early Church leaders several times, and was never infallible in the first place anyway! It was written by a whole bunch of different people at different times, all with their particular axe to grind. Like I say, it's Jesus and his conduct that impresses me, not the Bible or the Christian churches. You can find out a good deal of useful things about Jesus from the Bible (and from a number of other less well known sources...), so that's fine with me. I read the Bible with interest, but I don't swallow it whole.

troll - Yeah, we'll be shaking our heads over each other for who knows how long... :-) If we had been born in alternate families, we'd probably each be arguing the other side of the issue now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:52 AM

People who believe in the Holy trinity,Father Son and the holy Ghost all as one, so the actions of one is the actions of the other.

We have the same entity as God smitting people and then as his own son Jesus, who preached love and goodwill.

What I'm saying is simple,God and Jesus to many is the same person,Jesus may not have sanctioned smitting,but in his persona as God he did.

I'm not using this as a reason or justification for war, just pointing out that it is too simplistic a view to label Jesus a peacenick. And during time on earth Jesus has made or issued quite a few threats against those who would transgress against his Father (GoD). In other words the potentail of violence is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but I see it a bit differently. Seriously, we would have to sit down in a cafe and talk about it for oh, six hours, to even begin to cover these things.

This forum isn't big enough for such a discussion.

Subject: ADDPOP: Jesus Was a Capricorn (Kristofferson)
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:00 PM

Jesus Was A Capricorn
Kris Kirstofferson

Jesus was a Capricorn
He ate organic foods
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes


Long hair, beard and sandles
And a funky bunch of friends
Rekcon we'd just nail him up
If he come down again



Chorus: 'Cause everybody's got to have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on
You can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me


Eggheads cussin' Rednecks cussin'
Hippies for their hair
Others laugh at straights who laugh at
Freaks who laugh at squares


Some folks hate the Whites
Who hate the Blacks who hate the Klan
Most of us hate anything that
We don't understand

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:29 PM

To tell the truth, I don't believe I've heard the word peacenick in at least thirty years, until I used it yesterday. I was wondering whether there negative conotations still wafting from it (if there ever were), but I used it anyway, forgetting about the times we are in. Now (watch this Little Hawk):

Sorry about that.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:03 PM

No problem, Dan. I wasn't sure how you were using it.

About the only time I ever hear it is when it is spat out contemptuously by someone who hates antiwar protestors.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM

Do we really need to resort to playground insults to make our points?
Calling anyone directly involved with this conflict a coward is not very useful. It would be impossible to prove and it removes attention from the real issues. Yes the US uses technology which allows a maximum of damage with a minimum of casualties but any other government which afford it would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 05:01 PM

Hmmm...

Have I not clarified by now that it is the political leaders I was referring to, not the soldiers?

Okay, then. Steve (Norton1), I apologize without reservation for having upset you by saying "What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!" I spoke hastily and without care. I do not regard American soldiers as babies or cowards, and I doubt that anyone else does either, if he's had the displeasure of having to fight them. I regret causing offence to you, your daughter, or anyone else by my statement.

Next time I will be sure to say "armchair warriors in high places" in order to make it clear who I am referring to (I hope).

Jack - You're right about that ("any other government which afford it would do the same). The British used fast-firing rifles and early machine guns to massacre African tribesmen by the thousands and thousands at battles like Ulundi and in the Sudan after Karthoum. It was pitiable, and entirely predictable. The Africans fought and died anyway, because they appeared to have no other choice except to lie down and surrender their way of life to a foreign invader without resistance. That's the way it goes in power politics. To the victors the spoils. Just don't pretend that it's not what it is...conquest for imperial gain. (But we'll disagree about that, in the case of Iraq.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

Well spoken LH - Apology accepted without reservation - you are most forgiven my friend. As Jan says - "We live in troubled times." And that we can have this dialogue is good. AllI could see is my kid in a ditch trying to keep her troops alive and trying to imagine how she could even remotely be connected with your statement.

I've run my mouth before out of emotion - we all do and I believe it is our job to let each other know when we transgress so we can apologize, reframe, and be forgiven.

Have a superb evening - I have not heard from my kid for a day or two and I see that her unit has been under grenade attack and that several were hurt - yippy fecking skippy - sometimes being a dad sucks

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM

Metchosin, if it were really just about the oil, why didn't we just take over kuwait and Iraq in '91 when we pretty much owned them anyway? Why wait 12 years until Saddam has had the chance to build up his military machine? Davidsons essay on client states is all well and good but Saddam hasn't been a client of anybody for a number of years. He has, however, worried his neighbors a lot.
No one seems to have a viable alternative to someone going in and removing him. And that needs to be done.
I am aware that the US supported Saddam years ago. You could say we created him so we must share the guilt for what he has done.
OK.
Now it is our duty to remove him. As far as France and Russia losing money on oil contracts that will not be honored by the new government, it would surprise me if that were not true. Those contracts were negotiated with a different government and it would be up to an international court to decide if they need be honored. The world economy has changed since the contracts were let and the new Iraqi government could probably make much better deals, possibly with the same countries.
I am sure that the US will have influence in the matter as we will be, after all, the ones who toppled Saddam and ended his reign of terror. France and Russia held back and the Iraqis won't forget that.
Steve, I hope your daughter is ok. It's hell not being able to be there to look after them isn't it?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:36 PM

Steve, your blood runs through her veins; don't forget that, Bro. Strength and courage and safety to her and ease of heart to you, darlin'.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM

Troll-you speak as if twelve years ago, Bush II were sitting in the White House, and his policy were the same now as it was twelve years ago. Quite frankly, the world would be a much better place if Bush I had gone in during the first Gulf War and taken Saddam out when world opinion would have supported him. France and Russia do lose economically from this invasion, but American companies gain. Either the rebels' promises will be honored, granting oil contracts to those companies which supported them, or the U.S. military government will award contracts, most likely leaning toward those companies who donated to Bush's campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM

It was quite odd, I think, that Bush the elder did not push on to Baghdad in '91, and I've always wondered what the behind-the-scenes maneuverings and decisions were that led to that not occuring.

Clearly, anyone whom Saddam has hurt in the past (such as Kurds, Iranians, and numerous Iraquis) will be delighted at the thought of him being brought down by this war, and that's perfectly understandable.

Be that as it may, I don't think the war is being fought on behalf of Kurds or Iraquis or anyone like that. I think it's part of a much larger plan being implemented by what has been called the New World Order. That plan has worldwide purposes, and Iraq is just one piece in the puzzle. The War on Terrorism is another piece, and will be used to justify many aggressive actions. Removing the constitutional protections of Americans is another piece in the puzzle. Securing control of world oil supplies is another. "Taking out" Iran (presently) is another. And so it goes...

When the Iranian thing comes around, some excuse will be found. Some incredibly "evil" Iranian leader will be discovered, and then focused on relentlessly by the N.W.O. media (mostly emanating from the USA), and if necessary some hideous terrorist act will occur to supposedly justify a military move on Iran. That is my expectation.

America cares not a fig for the welfare of Kurds or Iraquis, but you can't say that on TV! Today America does what makes Kurds happy, tomorrow America will sell them down the river to the Turks or to somebody else. That's the way it always goes with empire-building by big empires. They talk humanitarianism, they practice conquest and obliteration of the competition, whoever that competition might be.

Those who are momentarily benefited in some way by the empire's latest move will naturally argue in favour of that move, unless they are able to look well beyond it to the further ramifications.

Still, I can't fault them for looking forward to Saddam's defeat. As I said, it is completely understandable that they should feel that way.

Steve - I feel sort of sick at the thought of the daughter of someone I actually know being in that sort of danger. I'm not kidding. It really brings it home when it's someone you know. What can I say? I hope and pray that she comes to no harm.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 01:58 PM

"I think it's part of a much larger plan being implemented by what has been called the New World Order."

Nope its aliens, little grey shinned aliens with big lightbulb shaped heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:45 PM

Check THIS out, Jack, follow a few of the links to the actual text, then come back. This ISN'T alien abduction/ "X-Files" stuff- unfortunately.