theloniusfleabag

Dear Argus, Quite simple. Iraq was not at war on it's homeland during this time. They had just come out of 8 years of war with Iran not long before the Kuwaiti invasion. In Gulf I, Kuwait was liberated, but no incursions into Iraq were made. Apart from the near daily bombings over the next 10 years by the US and UK, there were no major hostilities on Iraqi soil.Further, the 'Oil for Food' sanctions, (Dubious as they may have been, as some hold regarding the UN) meant that Iraq could no longer trade Oil for Arms, and lacked the ability to prosecute any war or like activity. Therefore, while the sanctions were meant to "Keep Saddam in his box", they were probably the most peaceful and abundant times the average Iraqi had seen for many years, including this one.

Dear Tawasakm, You specifically asked for motive, not culpability. As far as motive goes, one must work backwards. Iraq would likely not have been invaded if it were not for 9/11. The impetus for armed action was based on 'direct or perceived threat' to the US. The US gov't, specifically GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney, receive 'carte blanche' from the American Public to attack anyone based on what threat they can perceive.

Dear caesar, There is a catch-all phrase that the US gov't can employ to deny or suppress any truth they feel is out of line with what they want to be known. "In the interests of national security..." Hans Blix, in his book "Disarming Iraq", claims that the most likely cause of the 'Gulf War syndrome' is the destruction of Sarin gas while US troops were nearby. It took the US gov't/military 5 years to admit that they even had encountered, and improperly destroyed a nerve gas stockpile.

Dear Hugo, Is that not also the right of the Anarchist or the 'Clan'? (In fact, a sole Anarchist automatically has monopoly over all his resources! Unless, of course, he is schizophrenic. )In all cases, Gov't or Anarchy, the use of power or violence is an option open to all, with consequences for all. Any gov't abusing power could face rebellion, an uprising or a coup followed by a beheading.

Dear Tawasakm, I would not even suggest such a conspiracy, however, I will say yes, Bush would have had motive.If I may refer to a post I made earlier, He needed a war, one in which the USA was attacked, and Bush used the opportunity to go into Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.

Dear KK, Good to hear from you again, wrong though you may be. Spain was attacked for the sole reason of being in bed with the US regarding Iraq. The 'terrorists' did not want Spain to 'give up democracy, freedom, etc." as the right-wing spin doctors claim. they simply wanted Spain to stop abetting the (perceived) attack on Muslims in Iraq. Once the Spaniards democratically removed their leader (As Osama encouraged the citizens of the US to do) and withdrew their troops, they have been subjected to no more attacks either. It seems the 'terrorists' are keeping their word. If you read "Imperial Hubris" you might find out just what their 'word' wants. More attacks on USA proper are expected by everyone. Nothing the US has done since 9/11 has served to do anything but increase the likelyhood.

Dear Argus, Flood Control is a crucial piece of the anti-abuse features on this site. I had been on a previous (now defunct) forum where one poster flooded the forum for days on end. When I asked this poster to take that sort of wasteful garbage posting elsewhere, his response was "Screw you" and then he hit 'enter post' for about 3 hrs. Nitwits like this are rare, but they are out there. The Moderator, Flood control, and the general goodwill of the posters here make this one of the best forums I have come across.

Dear Chloe, In some ways, I agree with you, and other ways, not. The Bush Administration has repeated lied about the motivations of the 'terrorists', such as "They hate Freedom and Democracy", and "It's not our actions they hate, but who we are". This does not serve to enlighten, but to brainwash.I am afraid the US may have doomed itself with it's actions. Almost every child being born in Iraq today (and elsewhere) is going to grow up hate the US, for it's actions, and not what it once used to represent.

Dear Hugo, I read these essays, and I must say they have not convinced me to move to Somalia anytime soon. As an aside, 'transferable restitution' was one of the most annoying habits I encountered in high school (and a little bit beyond) amongst us 'poor' students. Sometimes I would lend $5 to a friend, but when I asked for it back, he would say, "Oh, 'Joe' owes me five, so just collect from him and we'll be square". I would always reply, "Screw that, YOU borrowed the money so YOU pay it back. Live up to your responsibility!" As to the essays, I found it curious that all of them referred to the clan-style of 'autonomous existence', when the 'greater clans' were defacto gov'ts themselves. They always refer to the clans 'defending themselves', without acknowledging that it was probably (With the exception of the US incursion) the aggression of a neighboring clan, or themselves, that was the ongoing problem. The essays didn't tell you that the individual clans were the agressors, but there sure seems to be a lot of 'defending' going on. Another intersting point was that very little wealth is created in Somalia, (If you can call a gov't less country a name) but rather it was 'sent home' by the diaspora. As to the development of resources, Jim Davidson accuses in his essay while the US may have paid a local clan some few dozen chickens for the 'lease to the land', and since the contract would have been voluntary, (and Xeer-kosher) there is no legitimate 'beef' here.For any investor, to hear the words "Our mineral development rights depend on the unwritten word of a clan-chief, and that word depends on whether he and his clan can field enough milita and arms to defend their territory from a neighboring clan and/or bandits." does not inspire confidence.

Dear maplesyrup, I recently bought "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix. In this book, Hans states that he is happy Saddam is gone, but suspects the inspections were allowed by the US/UK only to provide time for a military build up, and the invasion was going to happen regardless. Blix debunked most every claim the US had regarding weapons violations, including the Iraqi possession of 'a cluster bomb' and an 'aerial drone', but he still felt the removal of Saddam was a good result. One of the few, mind you.

Dear Hugo, Here is a modern working example of the feasability of Anarchy. This was lifted from the BBC online news today.

Dear caesar, August1991 says his house is a wintery one, so I am guessing he is Les Canadien. I must admit, even though 'je ne pas parlez francais', I have never seen "J'y"before.

Dear caesar, I agree, this is heinous. As far as I can tell, her only crime was being born in Britain. This murder will not endear the perpetrators to anyone, 'insurgent or terrorist'. Only the US or the UK could stand to gain from this. Oddly, she was not beheaded like all the others. Another curious thing was that she was murdered after the 'video slaughterhouses' were captured.

Dear August1991, Perhaps you could could give a new explanation what 'non-renewable' means in the term 'non-renewable resource'. Indeed, as we are seeing in Ft. McNewfoundland, AB.However, fossil fuels take hundreds of millions of years to create, not higher prices, and, with oil, consumption vastly outstips creation. The numbers are not 1:1. I cannot give a direct ratio right now, but I'm sure you'll agree the population has changed a bit since then. As of now, the top US gov't decision makers are ALL ABOUT oil. It was and is their lifeblood. Any new Iraqi gov't will be pro-US or it will not exist. No, not at all. I am talking about pricing and production.Finally, Good on ya. The Winnipeggers gave the Japs a right bloody nose, and earned the respect of the Japanese that the Brits failed to do in Malaya. A case of "Defeat With Honour".

Dear Black Dog, War is hell, or so they say. "War is not fought to preserve the enemy." Adolf Hitler. In Viet Nam the US had used very unofficial 'possum squads' to shoot all wounded VC prisoners in the head. Their rationale was that 'they couldn't treat em, and they couldn't take them with them'. Further, it was not beyond the VC to attack, even when wounded, if they could, and a favorite trick was to boobytrap dead bodies. In Indochina, when the French were still clinging on, the Viet Minh used to slash every throat to ensure there were no survivors after battles. This does not mean I condone the actions of the marine who (assumably) killed an unarmed, wounded man. If the US claims to be taking the 'high moral road', then they should stick to it, and the soldier should be held accountable. However, the action he did seem to take is, sadly, very common in the history of war.

Here's an interesting quote, one which may come to pass...It is from "The Commanders" by Bob Woodward, 1991. Page 39. (Not sure if it was released in August, lol) A conversation between outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe, and incoming Chairman, Gen. Colin Powell.

Dear August1991, I must concur with Black Dog and maplesyrup. The US doesn't, at this time need, the actual oil, they need to control the prices by controlling the supply. Think of it this way, If August1991 had the chance to forcibly take control of the entire Wal-Mart enterprise, or at least it's entire inventory and stores, would he do it? Yet he asks, "What would one person do with 20,000,000 microwaves? Why, it would be silly for one person to have that much stuff!" The answer is that the person would sell it for his own profit, he could dictate the price that others could sell it for too, by controlling the majority of the supply. Oil is different than microwaves, too, for oil's supply is much more finite. OPEC controls enough of the production to control the price. That is coming to an end. Iraq (debatably) has the world's largest proven reserves in the ground. Whomever controls that will set the price America pays for it's oil, no matter where they get it from. If they charge $100/bbl, you can bet Venezuela will charge at least $99/bbl. I have mentioned this book before, August1991, I hope you have read "Imperial Hubris, Why the West Is Losing The War on Terror". The author is as credible as you can get. he states that if the US continues to snub alternative energy sources and chooses war to fund the cheapest energy source for itself, then 9/11 and the rest of the terrorist actions are just the tip of the iceberg. The US will have only itself to blame, but they'll spin it until you're dizzy saying it isn't their fault.

Dear August1991, The US is the world's largest consumer of oil, about 20% of the world's consumption. Even China, with it's massive growth, is on track to consume about 9% by the year 2020. The US is interested more in controlling the price and the currency of oil, rather than the barrels themselves. Iraq had stated that they would only trade in euros for oil, and since they have (arguably) the world's largest reserve of oil in the ground, this would have been another blow to the already over-valued US greenback. It would be a tremendous blow to the US economy if another country besides the US-friendly Saudis set the price (and currency) for barrels of oil.

Dear Tawasakm, 'Religion' cannot be thrown out nor eradicated. It began as an explanation to the meta-physical, surely, but science and logic whittled down that which was once inexplicable. Not too many people are sacrificed to the 'volcano god' as an appeasement anymore, for example. As a devout agnostic, I realize that all religious text was written by people. Religion, especially text based ones, use heavily, 'personification and deification', to 'explain' the meta-physical. Part of the arrogance of the species, I suppose. One cannot tell another that their beliefs are wrong, however, without providing at least rudimentary evidence to the contrary. I believe the current imbroglio in Georgia State over the teaching of Creationism is an example.

Dear Hugo, An insult tempered with a compliment puts you back at 'ground zero', no? I will admit to you that the base of gov't power is coersion. However, that same power is one you deny as the base of property rights. Yet they are one and the same. As to the collection of taxes by force, the 'anarchists' simply need to establish a majority that refuses to pay those taxes. There would be too many for the gov't to prosecute. That would require, however, abandoning anarchism (at least for a time) and voluntarily joining a 'group' or society of those with common values (such as a tax-revolting cadre). PS., I don't think of you as 'thick' by any stretch, but you do tend to hold tightly to the 'absolutes' by definition. Perhaps a better insult for you would be "Herr Sphincter-Klench". Just kidding.

Dear Hugo, This is fine, right and just, but only if you are the sole person on the planet. Even God, or man's notion of god, sought to put limits on this free will by religious law. (Although that is a 'voluntary contract' also)

Dear CdnRepublican, I believe that there is a large group of people out there, mostly of similar religious base, ethnicity and sex, Jew and Gentile alike, that will continue to place their faith in 'The Old Testes'. Yes, Arafat was corrupt. He spent most of his efforts holding on to his own power rather than fighting on behalf of Palestinians. There is a good book that covers a lot of this, it is called 'Intifada' by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari (1989). It is very impartial and pragmatic. Basically it states that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are both doing things wrongly. Mankind has tainted both sides for so long it is tough to discern the colors anymore.

Dear CdnRepublican, I always find this claim interesting. It seems that few understand that Judaism refutes Christianity as a dangerous and foolish religion. There was recently an interesting question posed on "Ask The Rabbi" on the Arutz-Sheva news website. The Question was "Is it OK for a Jew to read The New Testament?". The answer was "NO, unless it was for the purpose of refuting it's lies".

Dear Mopek, I too have heard many theories about the US' support of Israel. One indisputable fact is that AIPAC is the one of the, if not the, most powerful lobby group(s) in the US. Incidentally, Osama Bin Laden has listed 6 reasons for 'waging defensive jihad' against the West, and the US support for Israel is just one of them.

Dear Mr. Hardner, I agree that the message of the Church, no matter which one, was that of good intentions. Transgressions by representatives of said churches are amplified by the apparent hypocrisy. The Terrible Sweal wonders when 'right and wrong' do not change, only mankind's interpretation does.