"Wait! Don't leave!"

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 9:57 am

DJEB wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote: Iraq invaded Kuwait and would not pull out in spite of direct orders from the US and the world to do so. The US (with meager assistance from the world) pushed him out. Serious consideration at the time was given to taking the war all the way to the capital. It was decided that this probably would not be necessary and that sanctions and diplomacy could rid the world of Saddam. Unfortunately we were wrong and this petty despot continues to grip on to his power.

Mmm. You really think you know a lot about this, eh? What was the UN Security Council Resolution that authorized this? Have you read it? Apparently not. What did that UNSCR call for? Indeed, why did GHW Bush not take out Saddam. His official reason was that there was not a UN mandate to do so. Do I need to post that resolution here?

You stupid bitch. Where the fuck did I say that there was a resolution passed to take out Saddam. You dumb motherfucker. Read what I fucking write before you compose a fucking book. Utter dumb ass.

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:01 am

&quot wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:Don't forget that many Americans were killed (thankfully few in view of the war but many died in the campaign including those who were killed in accidents).

So the U.S. should invade again and get more servicemen killed in retaliation? Brilliant. Unfortunately for you, revenge is not mentioned in Article 51 of the UN Charter, so this issue is not relevant.

I am dealing with a man who has the brains of a fucking gerbil on crack. No. I am not suggesting that we send in more soldiers because he has killed our servicemen before. What I am saying is that we need to remove him now while he is weak.

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:09 am

DJEB wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:In addition, many of our servicemen are suffering from bizarre and well documented diseases that the medical community recognizes exist but can't explain fully. These casualties were suffered by men who were stopping Saddam from grabbing Kuwait and its riches.

And where did these casualties come from? There is no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the '91 Gulf War, but the U.S. did use thousands of tons of depleted uraniam. Unfortunately for U.S. servicemen, DU is toxic and slightly radioactive. This issue is not relevant either, however

Oh boy. Dogbert barks again. No one in the medical community is even suggesting that depleted uranium could be responsible for the bizarre symptons of Gulf War Syndrome. No one Dogbert so don't even try.

This illness is likely caused by many factors. However, one thing should be clear to a total idiot and asshole such as you. That is, none of the servicepeople would be suffering from this illness today were it not for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

For you to even suggest otherwise is equivalent to letting a cop killer walk free because the officer should have been wearing a better bullet proof jacket.

Utter dummy.

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:21 am

&quot wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:Thankfully the US continues to push the issue. Following this war the world decided that sanctions and restrictions were necessary to rein in Saddam. No fly zones have been established and routinely flouted by Saddam. American pilots have periodically been locked on and fired at by Saddam's forces.

There is no UN resolutionauthorizing the no-fly-zones. However, every UNSCR resolution I've read on Iraq states in the opening paragraphs that Iraq is a sovereign nation - ie. it has the right to self defense. Even the disarmament resolution acknowledges this. In the history of the no-fly-zone, no U.S. (or UK or French) planes have been shot down, but over a thousand civilians have been killed by U.S./UK bombing in the no-fly-zones after the war.

This is a matter of interpretation. As the enforcers of the peace in this region the United States has never waivered in maintaining No Fly zones along with the support of the UK and until relatively recently FRANCE.

Where do you get the one thousand civilians killed stuff. Furthermore, if they did get killed why don't you put any of the burden on Saddam. He has nothing to hide right.

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 11:27 am

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:What happens if we pull out and Saddam begins the process all over again and throws out inspectors. Do we have another military build up?

First, the current crisis was from 98 when the U.S. pulled out the inspectors. Second, the inspectors would leave anyway - but monitors would not. No cause for war here.[/quote]

We did not pull out the inspectors. Do some reading, or at the least, some listening. They were thrown out. Why do you persist with this nonsense.

by **DJEB** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:39 am

gaisaradatsuraku wrote: You say I need to study more history???

Buddy you need to get your head out of your stupid ass.

Rhetoric (especially juvenile rhetoric) is cheap. Show me where I have made an error.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:It is hard to know where to even begin with someone as ignorant as you. Here's a start. You seem to be claiming above that the Gulf War was conducted without UN support. Dummy, READ.

I say the same. Read. Where did I say this? I did not even insinuate this. Stop with the strawman fallacies already.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:The UN ordered Saddam out.

Like I said the UN did. No kidding. Again, I challenge you: what are the relevant UNSC Resolutions? Read them.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:He refused. His people died. Saddam was responsible for this including the killing of so many in Kuwait as well.

Yeah, he is a monster. I don't need you to tell me that. I wish the U.S. government never supported him, but they did, so now the world pays the price.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:The US led action was completely blessed by the UN and don't even make yourself look stupid by suggesting otherwise (of course you have long been making yourself look stupid).

Oh, I have? Every rebuttal you've made, I've countered - minus the juvenile rhetoric. Again, where did I claim the "Member States" did not have a mandate to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait? Again, I have not even insinuated this.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:Also, you gave me a absolute belly laugh when you indicated that you think the Kurds are in Iran.

Hello? Are you even reading the same website? How you managed to get "a [sic] absolute belly laugh" over something I didn't even write, I'll never know. Did I say anything about the nations in which Kurds live? If I did, you'll have no problem quoting me.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:Dummy, the Kurds that Hussein attacked reside in Iraq. In 1988 Saddam conducted a genocide campaign against them and orders were given to Iraqi soldiers to kill ever Kurdish male of breeding age. Over 100,000 men just were wiped off the face of the planet. Thousands of villages erased and many underwent chemical weapons attack.

You mean Halabja (if you knew so much, I wonder why you couldn't be bothered to give the name of the town that Saddam ordered gassed). The claim to the Halabja massacre is about 5000 people killed (incidentally, the U.S. first tried to say that the Iranians did it and not their ally Saddam. Since you have a propensity to claim I say things that I never said, I'll say that again: the U.S. first tried to say that the Iranians did it and not their ally Saddam.) As for Saddam's crimes, they are great - again, his greatest crimes -- in Halabja and in Iran -- were carried out with U.S. support (something he no longer has). How many did he kill in total? There are all kinds of numbers out there - the sad truth is, no one knows for sure how many he slaughtered - there have been no truth commissions or investigations into this.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:You were asking for comparisons to Hitler. Dummy, now you have it. Why the fuck don't you know this already?

You could make all sorts of comparisions, if you like: they both had moustaches, etc. but for you to say that Iraq of the late 1980s was like Germany of the late 1930s, early 1940s is to demonstrate that you either have a gross misunderstanding of WWII of of Iraq in the said period.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:I'll close for now with something new. Regarding Gulf War illness. Did you know that Iraq coughed up a list of Chemical companies that sold Iraq chemicals that produce WMD. Did you know that the overwhelming vast majority of these companies are from ---- yes. Europe.

Yeah, I know. I read the list. Shall I post it here?

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:BTW, you don't have to tell me how old you are. It is self-evident. You are barely out of school.

Again, why you insist on such juvenile rhetoric, I don't understand. Are you afraid of trying to present a logical case? You think insults will substitute for rational discourse?

DJEB wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Iraq invaded Kuwait and would not pull out in spite of direct orders from the US and the world to do so. The US (with meager assistance from the world) pushed him out. Serious consideration at the time was given to taking the war all the way to the capital. It was decided that this probably would not be necessary and that sanctions and diplomacy could rid the world of Saddam. Unfortunately we were wrong and this petty despot continues to grip on to his power.

Mmm. You really think you know a lot about this, eh? What was the UN Security Council Resolution that authorized this? Have you read it? Apparently not. What did that UNSCR call for? Indeed, why did GHW Bush not take out Saddam. His official reason was that there was not a UN mandate to do so. Do I need to post that resolution here?

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:You stupid bitch. Where the fuck did I say that there was a resolution passed to take out Saddam. You dumb motherfucker. Read what I fucking write before you compose a fucking book. Utter dumb ass.

Again, you seem to think insults can substitute for rational discourse. Why? You seem to have forgotten your intent in your post. You were trying to justify the case for war. You posted about the long finished Gulf War, I responded. You are the one who said it was unfortunate that sanctions and diplomacy did not losen his grip on power. I posted the truth - that there was no UN mandate to take him out. An important point and an accurate point. Calm down, don't act like a spoiled child.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DJEB wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Don't forget that many Americans were killed (thankfully few in view of the war but many died in the campaign including those who were killed in accidents).

So the U.S. should invade again and get more servicemen killed in retaliation? Brilliant. Unfortunately for you, revenge is not mentioned in Article 51 of the UN Charter, so this issue is not relevant.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:I am dealing with a man who has the brains of a fucking gerbil on crack. No. I am not suggesting that we send in more soldiers because he has killed our servicemen before. What I am saying is that we need to remove him now while he is weak.

Yet again, no need to substitute rational discourse with childish insults. Thank you for clarifying - this is why I asked. So, this means that he should be attacked when there is no cause to attack him. The terror and expense of war can be avoided just by letting inspections run their course and letting the monitoring continue on as planned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DJEB wrote:

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
In addition, many of our servicemen are suffering from bizarre and well documented diseases that the medical community recognizes exist but can't explain fully. These casualties were suffered by men who were stopping Saddam from grabbing Kuwait and its riches.

And where did these casualties come from? There is no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the '91 Gulf War, but the U.S. did use thousands of tons of depleted uraniam. Unfortunately for U.S. servicemen, DU is toxic and slightly radioactive. This issue is not relevant either, however

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:Oh boy. Dogbert barks again. No one in the medical community is even suggesting that depleted uranium could be responsible for the bizarre symptons of Gulf War Syndrome. No one Dogbert so don't even try.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:This illness is likely caused by many factors. However, one thing should be clear to a total idiot and asshole such as you. That is, none of the servicepeople would be suffering from this illness today were it not for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

(Again with the juvenile insults.) And might not have happened if the U.S. hadn't used D.U. But on Saddam being a monster, I agree. It is a war crime to attack another country (be it Kuwiat or Iran). I just wish the U.S. hadn't supported him in the past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DJEB wrote: Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
Thankfully the US continues to push the issue. Following this war the world decided that sanctions and restrictions were necessary to rein in Saddam. No fly zones have been established and routinely flouted by Saddam. American pilots have periodically been locked on and fired at by Saddam's forces.

There is no UN resolutionauthorizing the no-fly-zones. However, every UNSCR resolution I've read on Iraq states in the opening paragraphs that Iraq is a sovereign nation - ie. it has the right to self defense. Even the disarmament resolution acknowledges this. In the history of the no-fly-zone, no U.S. (or UK or French) planes have been shot down, but over a
thousand civilians have been killed by U.S./UK bombing in the no-fly-zones after the war.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:This is a matter of interpretation. As the enforcers of the peace in this region the United States has never waivered in maintaining No Fly zones along with the support of the UK and until relatively recently FRANCE.

Obviously, the UK and US are not going to say that they are violating international law. FYI, France was involved, illegally, in the no-fly-zones until 1996. Also, the UN resolution condemning Iraq on this matter(UNSCR 688) says that the Security Council is "Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population..." and recalls "the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7 of the [UN] Charter." Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter says "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter]Where do you get the one thousand civilians killed stuff. Furthermore, if they did get killed why don't you put any of the burden on Saddam. He has nothing to hide right.[/quote]

First, on the Iraqis killed, I looked for an old table of deaths and casualities at the Voices in the Wilderness site, but the site has been totally restructured. I'll get that information for you as soon as I lay my hands on it. It's good that you called me on it because I'm going from memory and, thus, could be in err. One thing I am sure of is that there have been over 300 deaths as a result of no-fly zone bombing.

I don't get what burden there is on the Iraqi government for illegal bombing raids. And again, how would I know if Saddam has anything to hide? He could be hiding WMD, for example. Hence the need for inspections and monitoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

&quot wrote:
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:
What happens if we pull out and Saddam begins the process all over again and throws out inspectors. Do we have another military build up?

DJEB wrote:First, the current crisis was from 98 when the U.S. pulled out the inspectors. Second, the inspectors would leave anyway - but monitors would not. No cause for war here.

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:We did not pull out the inspectors. Do some reading, or at the least, some listening. They were thrown out. Why do you persist with this nonsense.

Take your own advise because you are wrong:

By ignoring or suppressing these facts, together with the scale of a four-year bombing campaign by American and British aircraft (in 1999/2000, according to the Pentagon, the US flew 24,000 "combat missions" over Iraq), journalists have prepared the ground for an all-out attack on Iraq. The official premise for this - that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction - has not been questioned. In fact, in 1998, the UN reported that Iraq had complied with 90 per cent of its inspectors' demands. That the UN inspectors were not "expelled", but pulled out after American spies were found among them in preparation for an attack on Iraq, is almost never reported. Since then, the world's most sophisticated surveillance equipment has produced no real evidence that the regime has renewed its capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. "The real goal of attacking Iraq now," says Eric Herring, "is to replace Saddam Hussein with another compliant thug." - http://www.zmag.org/content/MainstreamMedia/pilger_compliantpress.cfm

"The inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms," Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ignoring Iraq's concerns over the well-documented fact that the last inspection team in Iraq passed on intelligence information to the U.S. government in violation of its mission. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/arnove_iraq-crossfires.cfm

...the United States led to a fabricated crisis that had nothing to do with legitimate disarmament. This crisis led to the United States ordering UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before the start of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign executed by the United States and Great Britain that lacked Security Council authority. Worse, the majority of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UNSCOM inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam Hussein than weapons of mass destruction. Largely because of this, Iraq has to date refused to allow inspectors back to work. The ensuing uncertainty has created an atmosphere that teeters on the brink of war. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0731-09.htm

The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. [U.S. State Department] - http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/factsheet.htm

I was advised on two occasions by the representative of the United States of America that it would be wise for me to consider withdrawing my people for the sake of their safety. They also advised the Secretary General to the same effect and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the light of that advice Kofi Annan agreed with me that I should withdraw my people for their safety. They are the facts. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events2000/talking_point/tp04jun.ram

You'll hear that we were kicked out. We weren't kicked out. You know why weapons inspectors aren't there today? Because on December 15, 1998, the Deputy Ambassador of the United States in the United Nations picked up the phone, called Richard Butler and said, "get your inspectors out of Iraq." Why? Because on December 17 we started bombing. And what did we do when we bombed? We didn't go after weapons of mass destruction facilites. We went after Saddam Hussein to eliminate the president of Iraq... How did we target Saddam? We used the information collected by the weapons inspectors. So ask yourself, if you're an Iraqi, would you let the inspectors back in? I think not.
- http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3

by **DJEB** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:20 pm

gaisaradatsuraku wrote:Where do you get the one thousand civilians killed stuff.

DJEB wrote:...on the Iraqis killed, I looked for an old table of deaths and casualities at the Voices in the Wilderness site, but the site has been totally restructured. I'll get that information for you as soon as I lay my hands on it. It's good that you called me on it because I'm going from memory and, thus, could be in err. One thing I am sure of is that there have been over 300 deaths as a result of no-fly zone bombing.

This is the figure as of 27 May 2002:

According to the civil defence department the number of people killed in the No-Fly zones are 1141. The number injured are 1256. This is [sic]the official figures.
- http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00693.html

Sorry it took so long. I've been rather busy.

by **Gaisaradatsuraku!** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:57 am

Look, you have just avoided completely my question. I asked how many "civilians" were killed (since I don't believe it is anywhere near 1,000). Instead of answering that question you have just posted the general number which includes the military. Frankly, virtually all killed have been part of the Iraqi military. I have no grief for the deaths of soldiers defending tyranny.

Furthermore, you are quoting from somebody's emails. Moreover, in your numerous links to the depleted uranium question above, the links are all to Leftist publications.

Let's face it. You're just a young left leaning kid out protesting because you really don't have anything better to do. Moreover, you are so wet behind the ears that you don't realize that dealing with a dictator takes killing. We all want peace. We just disagree on how best to get it. Bush is on the right course here. He is standing up to this bomb throwing cowards and is sending a message to one and all of the petty dictators and funders of terrorism. The message is loud and clear and it is this: No matter how powerful you are in your own country we will find you in your own bed and drop a cruise missile through your window and kill you. These madmen need to fear the US more than they fear their own devil. This is how to fight this war. You cowardly Europeans can go on living like you want because the US will never defend you now. The only exceptions are the UK and Australia.

by **DJEB** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:47 am

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:Look, you have just avoided completely my question. I asked how many "civilians" were killed (since I don't believe it is anywhere near 1,000). Instead of answering that question you have just posted the general number which includes the military. Frankly, virtually all killed have been part of the Iraqi military. I have no grief for the deaths of soldiers defending tyranny.

If you know so much about it, I'm sure that you will provide some data to show that I am wrong and that "virtually all killed have been part of the Iraqi military." Without proof, there is no reason to believe your assertions.

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:Moreover, in your numerous links to the depleted uranium question above, the links are all to Leftist publications.

Nice attempt at an ad honinem. The political leaning of the source is irrelevant. Only the information provided is relevant. As for the Common Dreams website, they almost exclusively repost news from other sources. I also included three medical research papers (politically neutral). Furthermore, the idea of Dr. Doug Rokke being a leftist (yes, I know you didn't directly say he was) is laughable.

Let's face it. You're just a young left leaning kid out protesting because you really don't have anything better to do. Moreover, you are so wet behind the ears that you don't realize that dealing with a dictator takes killing.

Again, why you insist on the juvenile rhetocic, I don't understand. It's to make you feel good about yourself perhaps?

At any rate, I have given you several attempts to give a logical justificatoin for war and have received mainly non sequiturs.

We all want peace. We just disagree on how best to get it. Bush is on the right course here. He is standing up to this bomb throwing cowards and is sending a message to one and all of the petty dictators and funders of terrorism.

And I've already dealt with the claim that Iraq funds terrorism. If there is one event that is going to foster terrorism against the U.S. and UK, it is this war. There was a report in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday (Simmering Rage Threat to Regimes by Liz Sly) describing how the Middle East is seething with rage and ready to explode over the U.S.'s illegal attack. Another story in the New York Times on Saturday (Baghdad Bombing Brings Back Memories of 9/11 by David Chen) describes how for many New Yorkers this attack brings back images of 9-11 and fills them with fear of retaliation.

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:The message is loud and clear and it is this: No matter how powerful you are in your own country we will find you in your own bed and drop a cruise missile through your window and kill you.

The message since the Vietnam War has been quite the opposite. The U.S. has been either fighting covertly as in much Latin America or directly weak nations that can be defeated easily. The current conflagration makes this as clear as possible for world leaders. It is reasonable to expect a coming proliferation of nuclear weapons as a report by the World Policy Institute recently points out (Prevention, Not Intervention: Curbing the New Nuclear Threat by William Hartung).

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:These madmen need to fear the US more than they fear their own devil.

There is plenty of fear (and shock and outrage) towards the U.S. actions with regards to Iraq. [ http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030320.ra&start=1:20:03.0 ]

Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:You cowardly Europeans...

Huh? What Europeans?

by **DJEB** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:55 am

Regarding the ad hominem (ie. "leftist" sites):

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-08.htm

Via http://www.democracynow.org:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

by **cstaylor** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:47 am

DJEB wrote:If there is one event that is going to foster terrorism against the U.S. and UK, it is this war.

Goes deeper than that.
[quote]Qutb's vanguard was going to reinstate shariah, the Muslim code, as the legal code for all of society. Shariah implied some fairly severe rules. Qutb cited the Koran on the punishments for killing or wounding: ''a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear.'' Fornication, too, was a serious crime because, in his words, ''it involves an attack on honor and a contempt for sanctity and an encouragement of profligacy in society.'' Shariah specified the punishments here as well. ''The penalty for this must be severe]
The 20th century was democracy against secular totalitarianism, but this century is lining up to be democracy against religious totalitarianism.

by **Buraku** » Fri May 03, 2024 6:20 pm

North Korea fires ballistic missiles, South Korea, Japan say

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 024-04-22/

Rambo part 3, a pro-terrorism pro jihad Sharia Law film co-written by Sylvester Stallone veteran John Rambo defeats the galactic problems of universe by putting a Moongod raggy costume on his head

he joined the shitlamic pedophiles against the Commie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve7SZGU8By4

Can journalism survive the Taliban?

Hot Topics
Buraku Multiculturalism on the rise?	Buraku Homer enters the Ghibli Dimension
Buraku MARS...Let's Go!	Buraku Saying "Hai" to Halal
Buraku Japanese Can't Handle Being Fucked In Paris	Buraku Russia to sell the Northern Islands to Japan?
Buraku 'Oh my gods! They killed ASIMO!'	Buraku Microsoft AI wants to fuck her daddy
Buraku Re: Adam and Joe	Coligny Your gonna be Rich: a rising Yen

"Wait! Don't leave!"

No-fly zone deaths

Total lack of credibility

Re: "Wait! Don't leave!"

Who is online