RE: Iraq; a question of oil.

“Just listen to what your president has said”

Your president? Have you actually noticed my Avatar image? I’m not American, I thought that was pretty obvious …

As for what Bush said, for every comment made on oil, he has made dozens about weapons of mass destruction, aggression, democracy and terrorism. There is no doubt that oil is playing a factor, but to view the conflict throught the tiny prism of oil is misleading. It is the regular attempt to paint a picture of some capitalist war against some innocent third world country for the sole purpose of its exploitation, which is simply unture.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Iraq; a question of oil.

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-09-02 AT 09:20 PM (GMT)]> Say if he has Biological, Chemical or Nuclear weapons and says they
> are for self defence, what are we going to about it? UK, US, Russia
> all have those weapons for “self-defense” should we be invaded
> becasue we have them? No we shouldn’t nither should Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is resposible for the deaths of an estimated 2 millions people, in repeated acts of aggression : against Iran, against Kuwait, against Saudi Arabia, against Israel, againt Bahrain, against his own people! Anyone who belives that his weapons are for self defence is burying his head in the sand, turning a blind eye to events over the past 25 years. The world sits idly by when the man is such an obvious danger to the peoples of the region. What more would it take for the world to take action? Iraqi soldiers invading Poland? Or should we wait for Saddam to posses nuclear weapons to find out?

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

Attachments:

RE: Iraq; a question of oil.

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-09-02 AT 09:05 PM (GMT)]> let get real here, saddam is not seeking a nuke to fire it at the
> US the firts chance he gets, he only wants it as a nuclear deterent
> against futher invasions.

What further invasions? When has Iraq ever been invaded? Iraq under Saddam has instigated both Gulf Wars, the first by invading Iran, the second by invading Kuwait. Furthermore, Saddam has gased the Kurds, fired Scuds missiles at both Saudi Arabia and Israel, exports international terrorism and has killed thousands of his own citizens. This is a man that should be allowed to control nuclear weapons?

> but would GW give a crap abt him if he was the leader of some poor
> african country

If he were on the verge of crossing the nuclear threshold and posed a direct threat to US interests and allies, then yes he would.

> u cant just ignore the worlds problems in one place, and then wave
> the ‘for the good of mankind’ banner to achive ur own goals and
> expect everyone else to follow u and say, ‘god, what a brave and
> selfless country!’.

But what you are suggesting is that one ingnores all the worlds’ problems. How is that better? Iraq is an immediate danger that should be dealt with as soon as possible. Other problems have to be solved too, but complete inactivity, a do-nothing policy, is not something that “anyone with brains” can seriously contemplate.

As for everyone’s favorite accusation, ‘oil is at the center of Bush’s policy’: like a broken record, that is the usual simplistic and misinformed arguement, regardless of facts on the ground. If oil was all the Bush cared for, sanctions on Iraq could have been lifted and cheap and plentiful oil could have started flowing out of Iraq ages ago. Furthermore, contrary to popular myth, US Oil giants are actually among the biggest opponents to any new war in the middle east – it would cause a disruption of oil supplies, possibly for a great amount of time, would increase alreay-too-high oil prices and could cause immense damage to the actual oil fields. It was no surprise, therefore, that among the loudest opponets to immediate action were senior members of the Bush senior administration which currently hold senior positions in major American oil companies.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Rabie, chose history

> Geforce is gone …. but he is still alive and I like that !!!

Indeed! a venerable Jesus- He dies, yet lives !!!

> There is no evidence that Jesus was a non-violent protestor

Lack of evidence is not evidence. Besides, whatever some sources claim about Jesus, and your theory is one that I’ve never heard of before, are irrelevent. There is no evidence the man even existed, let alone that he died and came back to life. What is important is what Christian belief is based on, what the teachings of the last 2000 thousand years say, and that is that Jesus was a nonviolent reformist. To claim that the man was a terrorist is an exoneration of people who truely are terrorists, i.e. those who fly hijacked planes into skyscrapers.

> I wonder though if in the times of Jesus movements resembling
> Shas’s (and others) behaviour existed…

Of course they did. Jesus was born into a time of great divisions within Judaism, with extremists prevailing over moderates, dominating the political scene and dictating the course of events in Judea. After all, Jewish belief is that Jerusalem was sacked and the Second Temple destoryed because of senseless or baseless hatred which evoked the wrath of God. Some would say that is just what Shas is propagating …

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Rabie, chose history

> Even the ancient Romans and Greeks had trouble with terrorists
> (Jesus was one, I’m deadly serious).

Hmm, my knowledge of Christianity must be flawed. How was Jesus a terrorist? The man was a political dissident who opposed the Romans and the corrupt Jewish priesthood. I must have missed the point when he begun killing people in the name of his political objectives.
One can only treat Jesus as a terrorist if one has some romantic notion of terrorists, judging them by their aims alone (religious reform, political independence) and not by their methods (killing, blowing up people, those nasty little details).

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Sharkmouths

Sorry no, PII, though I don’t think it’s ‘so soon’. There was talk of the F-16Is replacing the Kurnass, but I don’t think it will be that soon. Maybe the latter batches, 102 are on order, meaning at least a few more years in service. I believe the initial deliveries will replace the first generation F-16s.
In any case, we should continue this on the AFM forum. I’ve already made a little contribution to your thread there :7

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: Sharkmouths

Dassault Ouragan.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

Attachments:

RE: User names

> I think my nickname is obvious. The only real western fighter.

The F-4 Eagle II? Never heard of it!

Skythe is derived from my old computer games callsign, Scythe. The C was replaced with a K to assosicate the name with aviation. I’ve been using the name for about a decade, although I’ve often thought of replacing it with Kurnass or something more IDF/AF related.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “