re: iraq/no-fly zones

[OIL! End of discussion!]

Re: Excellent article from New Zealand Herald newspaper (December 6, 2002) about Bush double standar

> Look at Israel's nukes too says Goff.

> 29.11.2002
> By SIMON COLLINS
> New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff says the credibility of the world's
> hardline position in Iraq is undermined by continued development of
> nuclear weapons in Israel.

> He also questioned the intelligence of the United States Defence
> Department, saying there was more intelligence on one floor of the State
> Department in Washington than in the entire office of the Secretary of
> Defence.

> He told a dinner organised by the New Zealand Asia Institute at Auckland
> University last night that New Zealand would support military action in
> Iraq only "as a very last resort".

> He was asked what role New Zealand could play to reduce the threat of
> nuclear weapons not just in the "Axis of Evil" countries of Iraq
> and North Korea, but also in South Africa and Israel.

> He replied that South Africa was no longer a problem since it had stopped
> its nuclear weapons programme when apartheid ended in the early 1990s.

> But he said: "Israel most certainly is a problem for all of us. As
> long as America is saying we want to deal to Iraq because it has weapons
> of mass destruction and it's not observing United Nations resolutions, a
> lot of eyes around the world say doesn't that apply also to Israel, why
> are you only looking to Iraq?

BECAUSE OF OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> "New Zealand's position on both is not to adopt a me-too position to
> any other country."

> He said the United Nations would be ineffective if its resolutions were
> not backed up by the threat of force.

> "But in Iraq's case I see huge problems if a military strike is
> launched," he said.

> "It will not be another fight in the desert. It will be like the
> Battle of Stalingrad, it will be fought block by block, neighbourhood by
> neighbourhood, with enormous casualties both for the invading forces and
> for civilian populations."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Zealand Herald newspaper (December 6, 2002)

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

Re: Excellent article from New Zealand Herald newspaper (December 6, 2002) about Bush double standar

> Oaf will slam terrorists everywhere except the US. It just sickens me to
> see the appointments of Kissinger and his ilk to the various postions that
> bush gives them.

Actually I've already posted previously that I think Kissinger was involved in terrorism. *sigh* People make their assumptions. I also pointed out Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were shameful in their silence or maybe even encouragement of Saddam's evil ways. My whole thing is about an idealistic American foreign policy turning the page on that, in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson. Kissinger is the enemy. And you must understand that he did things that were not approved of by Americans. Americans were in the dark. I'm not sure what to make of his appointment. WIlliam Safire wrote an interesting column I bookmarked about why Kissinger haters should be okay with it....

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/opinion/02SAFI.html
Excerpt:
====
What's the rationale for a card-carrying Kissinger critic to be pleased by Bush's giving this battered but unbowed national resource the power of subpoena to serve his country one last time?

Just as F.D.R. appointed Joseph P. Kennedy as first chairman of the S.E.C. because that predator knew all the manipulative tricks, Bush chose Kissinger because the old operator can see through the secret obfuscations he mastered long ago.

And because "only Nixon" could bring along right-wingers in his opening to Beijing, Henry is one of the few who has the trust of the keepers of the secrets to reveal to the commission the truth about our weaknesses, past and present.
====

.....but I'm not really agreeing with him, just an interesting take.

Kissinger and his ilk shamed this country.

 

[theboysharp]

Re: Is Loafing Oaf a sharp boy?

> "theboysharp"? I bet in your driver license you have something
> different under last, first name paragraph...

Of course, but only idiots and newbies use their real names on internet message boards.

> Come on, we BOTH are playing
> the same game of Internet flaming,

You are, I'm not. Using an alias to avoid giving lots of complete strangers personal information they could easily misuse is a necessary and harmless precaution on my part. Using multiple fake identities is a needless and unsavoury act of trickery on yours.

> Especially, if I'm highly suspicious, that "theboysharp" and
> Loafing Oaf is the same personality!!!

You're paranoid. Most cyber-schizos are, you know. It comes with the territory.

 

[theboysharp]

Re: Excellent article from New Zealand Herald newspaper (December 6, 2002) about Bush double standar

> Oh, bullshit. Israel has those for DEFENSIVE purpose, as they are
> surrounded by nations and fanatics who want to push them into the ocean.

30 years ago, certainly, but I don't think that argument holds water anymore. Israel now has peace agreements with by far her most powerful adversary of that time (Egypt), as well as the country with which it shares it's longest border (Jordan). It is by far the most powerful nation in the region, with annual military expenditures consistently two to three times as high as those of the other countries involved in previous Arab-Israeli wars combined.

The primary threat in the short term is that of suicide bombers based in the West Bank and Gaza, but isolated terrorist incidents do not warrant the development of weapons of mass destruction. The only military systems that come close to challenging Israeli military superiority are Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf procuring sophisticated weaponry, and all that's necessary to end that particular threat is for the United States to cease selling them to those countries.

> This idea that Iraq and Israel are equivalant is really f***ing sick.

I agree. There are obvious parallels to be drawn, but when doing so nobody bothers to mention the fundamental differences between them, i.e. Israel is a democratic country, whereas Iraq is a barbarous dictatorship headed by a Stalin-idolising lunatic; and, Israel has not repeatedly threatened to use weapons of mass destruction against the US and it's allies, whereas...

 

[Robert Evans - The Comeback Kid]

Funny thought.

> Kissinger and his ilk shamed this country.
That's what your typical right-wing ANTISEMITE would say...
Oaf, you surprised me by this statement...

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

Re: Funny thought.

> Oaf, you surprised me by this statement...

I've only said it ten million times. You've replied to those statements before.....

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

Re: Excellent article from New Zealand Herald newspaper (December 6, 2002) about Bush double standar

> I agree. There are obvious parallels to be drawn, but when doing so nobody
> bothers to mention the fundamental differences between them, i.e. Israel
> is a democratic country, whereas Iraq is a barbarous dictatorship headed
> by a Stalin-idolising lunatic; and, Israel has not repeatedly threatened
> to use weapons of mass destruction against the US and it's allies,
> whereas...

And as to U.N. resolutions, it's a bit stupid to compare SECURITY COUNSEL resolutions (17 on Iraq) with GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolutions. The General Assembly resolutions, in my understanding (and I'm no UN expert...) are merely opinions, whereas the Security Counsel resolutions are considered legally binding. Do I have that right? Furthermore, the General Assembly is where a bunch of Muslim nations can just sit there and vote for resolution after resolution against ISrael to the point of absurbity...and clear singling out of Israel for racist reasons. That's not to say Israel shouldn't end the settlements and shit, they should. But what are the SEcurity Counsel resolutions against Israel?

 

[Librarian on Fire]

Somebody actually reads Granny Herald?