Subject: Re: US Violates Afghan Prisoners Rights to Life...and Justice
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:45:51 +0100


President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and
asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?"
The barman says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you
guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III ".
And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one
blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big
tits?"
Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ass,
I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: US Violates Afghan Prisoners Rights to Life...and Justice


>
>
> Subject: Re: US Violates Afghan Prisoners Rights to
> Life...and Justice
>
>
> John Foster wrote:
>
> Saddam Hussein is 'America', it's old buddy. But now that
> the US wants the
> oil now and the water from the various large rivers to
> supply Isreal, it
> has no need any longer for Saddam. We know that the US gave
> the 'green
> light' to Saddam to seize Kuwait.
>
> How sure is that, John? Because if it is, it would turn dad
> Bush into
> something VERY ugly, and Americans into deniers of
> warcrimes.
> I already thought that on account of the Shiits, that first
> were admonished
> to uprise, and then left to Saddam's cruelty, that is now so
> eloquently
> adduced. How is it possible he got away with it?
>
> Rene, America, according to Paul earlier has denied it's own
> war crimes. It is silent too on many matters of it's
> dealings in at least 79 foreign nation states (cf. Chile to
> Iraq). I think that Iranian Shiites were lead to fight the
> Iraqi's formally by Khomeini and his regime, which was
> attempting to storm the Arab world, invading first Iraq. The
> Iraq government believed that it was acting on behalf of the
> US in this war with Iran. Iraq at the time viewed Iran as a
> fundamentalist regime dedicated to destroying American
> dominance and western values in the Arab world. America was
> protrayed as Satanic. So Saddam Hussein fought a war with
> Iran which the US was in full support of. Unfortunately the
> Iran-Iraq war cost billions of dollars and perhaps one
> million lives in the region. After this very expensive and
> tragic war, Iraq was unable to fund the repair of it's
> economy, it found itself in huge debt, and rationalized that
> it was necessary to seize Kuwait for it's oil riches (It was
> refused substantial loans by Saudi Arabia and, and as well,
> other Arab nations began selling their Iraqi loans to world
> banks which infuriated Iraq). The US knew that Iraq intended
> to attack Kuwait and was warned (there is a body of
> literature on this indicating some briefings by Iraq).
>
> Saddam Hussein did not get away with this attack on Kuwait
> and we know that the US lead a large military expedition to
> remove the Iraqi army. This was the Gulf War of 1990.
> Unfortunately hundreds of thousands of fleeing Iraqi
> soldiers and civilians were killed by the coalition forces.
> Up to 2/3 rds of the oil wells were destroyed. According to
> historians and analysts, the policy of 'containment'
> resulted in sanctions which were part of US demands, and
> these sanctions resulted in the premature deaths of up to
> 500,000 children due to malnutrition and disease.
>
>
>
> Rene wrote:
> Besides, take a look at the map, at Quwait. Looks like the
> cork in Iraq's
> ass. Is it going to be removed too in the next world order?
> Or is this
> order just built around these ulcers, as Israel is also one,
> so that there
> never will be a solution?
>
> Rene, this question can only be answered in the future;
> however according to the recent budget request by Bush and
> his adminstration is that up to $7 billion USD will be
> donated to Isreal and some $3 billion donated to Jordon for
> 'damages to their tourism industry' whereas the total
> humanitarian aid to be allocated to Iraq for reparations
> will be only $500 million USD. Now that indicates to me and
> others perhaps that this amount is totally insufficient for
> Iraq's costs in this war. Indeed the UN and other agencies
> have indiacated that this amount is totally insufficient.
> Moreover why would Isreal warrant 14 times more humanitarian
> aid than would Iraq this year?
>
> It appears that the US and it's allies in this war are
> clearly working against the people of Iraq. Currently the
> Food for Oil program of the UN is not operating due to the
> fact that there are no means to disperse food and aid (the
> fund has over $6 billion in reserves), and Koffi Anan has
> indicated, along with the 'emergency security council of the
> UN' today that there is huge humaintarian crises occurring
> simply because relief organizations and the UN cannot
> disperse this food and aid. The US and the UK are strictly
> liable for preventing this aid and food from being given to
> the poor in Iraq throughout the country. The US and the UK
> are simply unwilling (except in Basra) to initiate a food
> relief program *until they get their job done* despite the
> rhetorical assurances that they will expedite assistance.
>
> Rene:
> Do America and Israel WANT a solution? Or do they
> only want the final destruction of their enemies? So that
> the Palestinians
> will be the Indians of the Middle East? These all-mighty
> states would not
> be capable of a solution? Where there is a will, there is a
> way, and the
> Arabs are not the most miserable. But you have to give them
> something,
> after all the taking. Otherwise they will pay back. I'm a
> little angry now,
> how must they feel?
>
> Rene,
>
> they have a road map for the next 50 years. This is outlined
> in the US policy on security, and I think you know about
> this report which was adopted lately preferring
> 'pre-emptive' means to solve relations with foreign nations
> which are said to be terrorist nations. Obviously Isreal is
> not referred to as a terrorist nation (except in press talks
> when there are attacks against Palestinians). Public
> security is the objective of the US for it's own citizens
> and there is nothing conclusive about securing the security
> of foreign nationals any where (obviously because of diverse
> reasons). So the solution therefore is to secure global oil
> and energy resources primarily for the US citizen. This is
> the goal and the solution. Recently it has been predicted
> that the next terrorist nations which the US will invade are
> Somalia and Yemen. I don't and cannot predict if Iran will
> be one of the next nations to be targetted (the US may have
> to wait for a year or two to get the funding in place and
> congressional approval). The action in Iraq will burn up a
> large portion of the US Federal budget this year and next.
> The ultimate goal for the US is to secure the oil and water
> in Iraq by creating a policy and economic environment in
> Iraq which is favourable  to US and western oil companies.
> The plan is to divert water from Iraq and pipe this to
> Isreal as well. The US plans a total economic integration of
> the middle east with itself, in a completely 'pre-emptive'
> manner much similiar to an imperial power colonizing a small
> nation with a weak central government. It is currently
> completing a plan in Afghanistan to open the country up for
> the construction of an oil pipeline to transport oil from
> the Caspian Sea area. It is currently working with 'Taliban
> Moderates' in Afghanistan in their civil war. The US is no
> longer fighting to simply dispose of suspected Al Queda
> networks, but is fighting militia units hostile to the
> dominant Taliban moderates which have legislated the
> persecution of women.
>
> john
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---