theloniusfleabag

Dear KK, Indeed, when no proof is required, and you carry the biggest stick, you can do what you like.

Dear d4dev, The US always serves the goal of more power and wealth for the US. It does not waver or condradict itself, it is still serving this end. Only the outside circumstances vary.

Dear KK, It is no secret that the US provided Saddam with WMD materiel while they were funding him against Iran and the Kurds. Funny how the right wingers ask for facts and proof to soothe their disbelief that the US is not benevolent and all-loving, yet when shown the facts, the right attacks the source or the dates, not the facts. The 'article' you posted previously regarding Noriega was so biased in it's wording I actually giggled when I read it. Then I suspected that you wrote it, (no offense here) because of the spelling errors.

Dear KK, Indeed, what happened? Why, after over a decade, does the US choose to uphold a old resolution from an organization it does not believe in, pay for, or listen to? Of all the resolutions outstanding, shall the US now attack Israel? Or themselves?

Dear Mr. Hardner, That seems to me very leftist. I like it. Charity is counter-productive to the right wing, however. People have said on this forum things like 'greed is good', and ambition is a type of greed, and it makes society work (to paraphrase)'. Is charity then not the opposite of accumulation? Therefore, it must be wrong (according to the right wing). That is why I do not believe that the vehemently right-wing cannot seriously be religious in any way. Greed is a totally different God than Charity.

Dear KK, You must be kidding. The first info link you posted could only be construed as 'based on a true story'. When I have more time, I will correct this parroted rubbish.

Dear KK, Good lord, where did you find that garbage? If you want to learn history, Rule #1 is 'don't read the US' version of it'.

Dear KK, Would you now state that your previous posts about 'oil having nothing to do with the actions of the USA' as being 'blown out of the water'?

Dear rightturnonred, Guillermo Endara was secretly sworn in as President of Panama in FLORIDA and flown in as the new head of state. His first action was to change the Panamanian Constitution, disband the PDF (Panamanian Defence Force) and declare that Panama could no longer keep a standing army. This allowed the US to declare that Panama could not defend the Panama Canal, thus giving rights in perpetuity to US occupation of the Canal Zone. This also abrogated the treaty between Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos which was supposed to give control of the Panama Canal back to Panama.As Pres. Reagan (who stole a quote from the Govenor of California) "[the Canal] ...its ours, we stole it fair and square". The US forcibly took what they lusted after. In this case it was the Panama Canal. I could not prove 'forcible intercourse' in a dictionary setting, only a political, economic, strategic and moral way. PS. A quick search did not reveal which UN document condemned the invasion of Panama, and demanded the honouring of the Carter-Torrijos treaty, but I did read it a while ago.

Dear rightturnonred, I have not the time to do much research regarding US oil monies in Iraq, but the statements made by Mr. Bush would apply. "Iraq Oil money must fund reconstruction" was said during the conflict. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's recent ex-allegience, was a subsidiary company of one that was awarded 7 of the 18 billion in 'reconstruction contracts' after the conflict. With regards to other US perfidy, For now, I will only offer the example of Panama. Manuel Noriega was branded an 'evil dictator' and indicted on drug charges. The truth was that Noriega was an employee of the US gov't that fell into disfavour when he aimed to honour the treaty giving control of the Panama canal back to Panama in 1999. You want proof? Watch "the Panama Deception", an academy award winning documentary about the real intentions of the US. "Over the course of its 15-year relationship with Manuel Noriega, the CIA made payments to him personally or to others intended for him that totalled $160,058.10.....The CIA funding to Noriega was generally in the form of monthly payments, variously described as a stipend, subsidy or salary.... Over the course of its 31-year relationship with Manuel Noriega, the Army made payments to him personally that totaled $162,168.31" -U.S. government document submitted in the case of United States of America v. Manuel Antonio Noriega Source: "Our Man In Panama" by John Dinges 1990. Noriega himself claims the monies were more in the range of $20,000,000.

Dear KK, Actually, I believe it is Hinduism that has the 'caste' system. Both Hinduism and Islam had oppressive rules, however, which led to the formation of Sikhism in the 1500's by Guru Nanak. This religion accepted all regardless of class. The US will continue to support dictatorships if they see fit. They used the guise of 'fighting the red menace' in the past, but often it was to continue to rape other nations of their resources. If the people wished to profit for themselves, they were evil communists. The 'Free American Way' was to have all of the resources controlled by US Based Multi-nationals and all of the profits funneled to the US. Thus, the people were 'free from communism'. They were also relieved of their resources and labour efforts as well. Whew! What a burden! Now the US wants to free Iraqi's from their oil. Sure, the oil itself does not go the US, but the profit monies have already started to. Anything else would be downright Un-American. After all, they paid (themselves) enough to make it happen, didn't they?

Dear KK, Are you suggesting that keeping riches among the elite is a bad thing? Are you anti-free enterprise now? Allowing people to make up their own mind, do you mean nationalization of oil profits? So the people can benefit from their own resources? That smacks of commie-nism. The US has funded many a dictator to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

Dear KK, Iraq is an Islamic country. They will not vote for someone that is non-Islamic. The vote will be fair, but it will always be a one-party country. How fair is that in western eyes?Again I will ask you, ? Surely you jest. Pick up a history book and see that the Word Of God, in Islam, has not changed in 1400 years. Then tell me what the western world can do to make them 'see the light'.

Dear Rasputin, I copied the Koran from the USC library, and with three translations for every verse it almost emptied my toner cartridge! However, many people still seem to hang on to western thinking modes when dealing with this issue. It is believed that it is the WORD OF GOD. Salman Rushdie had a bounty placed on his head for suggesting that Muhammed wrote it. All things are believed to pertain to it. If one is faced with choices, there are but two options. Do it your own way, or obey the word of Allah. The verses may sometimes be contradictory, but there is a 'law' that fixes these things also. The Koran could never be 're-created, nor re-written', for that would assume falliability of god (or Allah) Himself. In some places, that would incur the death penalty. For Muslims believe that no injury nor insult done to man could compare to that of one done to God. To quote my almanac, "...in Islam, the declaration of faith is not enough; one must also express it in one's actions. For all Muslims there are five essential duties: to know, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is His Prophet"; to pray five times daily facing Mecca; to keep the fast of Ramadan; to give alms to the poor and to the community; and to undertake, at least once in one's life, the Hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca."

Dear elder, Well said. Sadly, immorality sells better than morality for the media. Amen. If one only pays weekly lip service (or lip-service weakly) to higher values, and devotes through course of action the majority of their efforts serving another value, it is not hard to see which way things will go.

Dear KK, I have read that over 70% has been inspected. Of course, that is merely a statistic. If 100% gets inspected, and no WMDs found, the numbers could change to "We inspected only 25% below 10m so far". It depends on whether you believe a devout religious leader is a dictator and if Islam is oppressive.

Dear Rasputin, If you'll read the very first line of the resolution draft you posted... Indeed. However, UN weapons inspectors were there, and they had to clear out because the US/UK sent 'the tanks rolling in' before inspections were completed. After the fact, it seems that Saddam was telling the truth, there was just not enough time to prove it, as the US/UK said 'Saddam, you're lying'.Now it seems that Mr. Blair of the UK is claiming he didn't know what he was actually talking about when he pushed the UK into war. The UN resolutions and WMD arguments do not stand up under scrutiny, and indeed, the right wing keeps on saying 'there are other reasons, too'. Then drop the WMD and UN arguments and then tell all what the real intention was.

Dear KK, Hmm, the left gets branded as paranoid conspiracy-mongers for using terms like this. What shall we brand the 'right'? Hmmmmmm, actually, there has been nothing legal done yet. The use of force was to be recommended by the UN security council, not by a delinquent member. Further since no official declaration of war was issued, the actions of the US constitute a breach of borders of a sovereign nation. Further, if no official war was declared, Saddam cannot possibly be a POW. The reason the US chose to not to declare war was that international conventions dictate that the 'winner' is responsible for the populace. Rebuilding costs would have solely fell to the US. The UN did not declare Iraq 'in material breach', the US/UK did. With the absence of proof of WMDs, even granting ample extra post-conflict time for investigations, the US acted erroneously, if they choose to use UN resolutions as a factor. If they do not use the UN resolutions as a factor, then they illegally invaded another country. Hence, they should have had to declare war. they are trying to play both sides of the fence to their sole advantage, (as usual) and have been caught lying before the orld. But what can anyone do? They have the ability to kill anyone that opposes.

Dear Elder, I, myself, am a devout agnostic. However, I was raised catholic, and cannot deny that it was, to a certain degree, a positive influence. I believe morality pre-existed religion. The one thing I have noticed over the years is how the worship of money has replaced the reverence to morality (and God, no matter what religion) and it's growing negative effect on society. Religion was once the foremost 'devotion', and with it it's platitudes. Now, more that ever, however, I hear sayins like "friends are friends BUT business is business". Which is tantamount to saying, "don't let morality(or the freedom, equality or justice of others ) get in the way of profits. Morality (and religion) has been usurped from within. I believe that the 'final battle', or armageddon, if you will, is not going to be a battle between two opposing tribes. I believe it is going to be a monumental struggle within the individual.

Dear Elder and Moderate Centrist, The purpose of this thread was not 'is there is or is there ain't' a God, but rather how much is belief allowed to direct human actions. I would love to agree, yet it is more vital to the future than anything currently under discussion. Israel is fighting for existence because of it. It is their 'raison d'etre'. Islam (or factions thereof) are sending out suicide bombers for this.YThe greatest foly of the west as yet is not to have this as the central issue, for it is the central catalyst.

Dear KK, You are entirely correct. It was all done with a minimum of 'colonization'. The 'provinces' weren't set up by the British, though, they existed as small 'kingdoms' and the Brits took control of them, through some of the means I described.

Dear all, Regarding 'Religion and Politics, (the two taboo subjects, I was once told, one should never discuss at dinner)which is the one 'true faith'? Are those that worship (through means of action) devout, fanatical or heretical? Each religion rewards (both physically and hypothetically) faith and devotion. Did humans make up scripture? Or did some 'supreme entity' pass down rigid laws (mostly about diet and inheritance rights) that should take precedence over base morality? Or is 'humankind' at 'the wheel' of destiny?

Dea Rasputin, It is obvious you have not read the Koran. Nor studied history. This is not meant to criticise you. The Koran has no democracy in it. The Koran is revered (in original sanskrit) as the literal WORD OF GOD, as dictated to HIS last prophet, Mohammed. Even english translations are regarded as 'tainted', as GOD dictated it to Mohammed in Arabic. (Not sure whether it was Farsi or Urdu) The 'darkness lifted' you refer to is Islam itself. The 'Islamic world' will not grow and prosper in any western sense, for it can only battle against, or be replaced by, western value (and/or biblical or scriptural) interpretation.

Dear KK, Do not forget that there are theoretically only 2 people in the world, "you' and 'the one who is not you'. Sharing is to greed as inertia is to ambition.

Dear Rasputin, Dare I say Iraq did not break the most UN resolutions? Are you aware of which country has? of the countries that were proven to have abetted 9/11, which have been focused on? Afganistan, where the Taliban were based, (the US scores +1) Saudia Arabia (the US scores -1, ) The US is still on freindly terms with nations that created 9/11 as long as oil greases the wheels of the American system. Iraq was looking to stop greasing America, adopted the Euro and was forund to have the world's largest untapped oil reserves. Time for some name-calling and invasion if they won't satisfy the demands opf the US. they were being downright un-American.