Bush vs Hussein

[Auxin]

Who is a greater danger to world peace?

[Smiling Cloud]

hmmmm... Bush is a threat to peace because he is going to send the world to war. I can't see why they can't just off saddam, why bring all his people into it.

[gerbil]

they are both the same, both governments, both supporters, both feel and think they have the power.

Power that they, feel and want above the persons below them, which is everyone?

[ 02. March 2003, 23:29: Message edited by: gerbil ]

[Torsten]

This the second time in recent days that I pushed the wrong button in a poll. And in this case it totally screwed the result. Yes, I am the one who clicked Saddam and anyone who knows me would realise that would not be my answer.

I wish the votes were editable

Anyway, keep my stupidity in mind when looking at the results.

[nabraxas]

i think they complimentary opposites- yin & yang.

they go together like a horse & carriage.

[Auxin]

Torsten, you mean even YOU cant edit polls?

You run the place, WTF why wont the software let you edit anything you want?

Perhaps your finger slipped because of the subconcious effects the USAs mass propoganda campaign is having. The USA has invested a few billion dollars into mind control techniques you know and they must be using it, I've heard people refer to Bush as a peace loving intelligent man- thats either mind control at work or plain old ignorance.

[woof woof woof]

Nahhhhhh Aux, I think T is propaganda resistant...

maybe it's because he's been smoking some of that Dragibus.

We all know what that can do to you!

[gomaos]

Well this is really too hard a question to decide and it's not really the point:

What Bush stands for:

"The Western World", i.e.everybody should live like "Hank Hill"(king of the Hill Cartoons"), go to church, like football and all that crap, have a lawn to mow, helping rich motherfuckers stay rich, i.e. have a normal job, drink beer, stay away from drugs, vote for Bush etc.

(Vomit)Not for me.

Bush wants Iraqui oil. So the capitalist machine can keep turning. I oppose the capitalist machine.

One of the most enlightening days I ever experienced without drugs was sometime in the early seventies when "car-free' sundays were declared in my homecountry and-town.

never before and after did I see that many people walking in the streets. It was like a great "re-union" of mankind. Take away the techno-toys that delude our minds and we'll all become human again. of course this is very much anti-capitalist, and it will be long before it happens again. it will happens again, because the oil can't last forever. The sooner it runs out, the better for all of us.

If we don't have cars, we'll have to use buses and trains.

It would be good to get that stinking mess(cars) of the streets, at least in the cities.

But that's off topic really.

Well Bush stands for everything anti-democratic in the Western World. If we (they?) let him he will become like hitler. But he is not totally yet.

Saddam however is already like hitler and has always been like that.

He got into power through a coup.

To him it means nothing to just kill a few thousand people, if only for fun or other reasons.

If Bush is really bad, Hussein is still worse.

Hussein has to go. So has Bush. So has Howard.

As much as I hate Bush, Hussein is still worse.

So if I'm true to myself, I'll have to say that.

But I haven't voted yet.

Can't bring myself to vote in favour of Bush.

Sorry.

[Auxin]

"As much as I hate Bush, Hussein is still worse."

The thing is Hussein has not done anything to provoke a US led attack on him, but Bush doesnt care- he wants to attack him anyway because he will profit from the death of thousands of iraqis. This is just what Bushs father did. At the start of the gulf war Hussein was kind enough to ask permission from the US to attack Kuwait, the US said it was OK, as soon as Iraq attacked the first Bush went back on his word and attacked Iraq because he thought he could profit from the death of thousands of iraqis. Under both Bushs, in war and peace time, the US has continually dropped radiological bombs (that are illegal according to international law) on Iraqi villages for no other reason than to kill and mutilate the population of Iraq and poison the land. Why would they do such a thing? Because they thought that they could profit from killing tens of thousands of people (mainly children in the case of radiological weapons).

Iraq has never attacked the US without the US attacking first.

The US constantly attacks Iraq without any valid reason- often targeting civilians (blowing up watermains keeping whole towns alive, blowing up food shipments, stopping the transportation of vital medicines, dropping uranium dust and uranium bombs on children, and those are just the war crimes we know about!).

Thats why I think either one of the Bushs is worse than one hundred Husseins put together.

[faustus]

http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html online poll for world's biggest threat to world peace... united states by a mile.

here's some pure gold from good ole dubya:

"I understand small business growth. I was one."

"I think we're making progress.

We understand where the power of this country lay.

It lays in the hearts and souls of Americans.

It must lay in our pocketbooks."

"I think if you know what you believe,

it makes it a lot easier to answer questions.

I can't answer your question."

yep, they don't come any stupider than that. and to think he has his finger resting on the killswitch.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Auxin:

Torsten, you mean even YOU cant edit polls?

Not as far as I know. Certainly not officially. I think that's good though so the results are reliable.

Perhaps your finger slipped because of the subconcious effects the USAs mass propoganda campaign is having.

Na, I have a problem with focussing on double negatives. I get myself confused. I prefer positive questions and don't usually get them wrong.... like "who do you like"? Polls are supposed to be an endorsement of something (ie an approval of something), so asking for a negative kinda flips my brain.

[Rev]

Smiling Cloud:

hmmmm... Bush is a threat to peace because he is going to send the world to war. I can't see why they can't just off saddam, why bring all his people into it.

doesnt this exemplify this whole problem though

Saddam might be a bastard but he is still the leader of Iraq, even though he wasnt elected in a democratric fashion , neither was bush

Call me strange but you cant go round invading countries and killing people just because you dont like them.

There are many way to make a positive difference in the world but assasination isnt one of them, wherever its been done it doesnt seem to have had a positive effect

The UN, international solidarity movements and boycotts be much more powerful and bloodless tools of change. When people unite we win, when governments fight we, the little people, always lose.

[Auxin]

"There are many way to make a positive difference in the world but assasination isnt one of them, wherever its been done it doesnt seem to have had a positive effect"

Thats putting it kind of mildly, world war 1 was caused by the asassination of a single guy and world war 2 was a direct result of world war 1.

[woof woof woof]

Saw mr Powell's pupblic speach today,.... he gave plenty good reasons to attackt Hussein.

I say war is now almost inevitable if hussein doesn't stop playing his game.

"God/Jah/Allah/Jaweh/Krishna" - what everchockes your chicken dude!

[Zu]

brian:

Saw mr Powell's pupblic speach today,.... he gave plenty good reasons to attackt Hussein.

How can you believe anything from a guy who calls himself Colon?

Besides, finding reasons to attack Hussein isn't the problem, it's doing so without murdering thousands of innocent Iraqi people.

I'm now just waiting for Alexander Downer to regurgitate everything from Powell's speech as gospel.

[gomaos]

"As much as I hate Bush, Hussein is still worse."

This is just what Bushs father did. At the start of the gulf war Hussein was kind enough to ask permission from the US to attack Kuwait, the US said it was OK, as soon as Iraq attacked the first Bush went back on his word and attacked Iraq because he thought he could profit from the death of thousands of iraqis. Under both Bushs, in war and peace time, the US has continually dropped radiological bombs (that are illegal according to international law) on Iraqi villages for no other reason than to kill and mutilate the population of Iraq and poison the land. Why would they do such a thing? Because they thought that they could profit from killing tens of thousands of people (mainly children in the case of radiological weapons).

We'd really have to look into all of this, before we cast our votes.

I have been told that Hussein has wiped out whole villages of his own people with chemical weapons, and now you are saying that Bush ist doing the same thing...or very similar, radiological...

If either of them have done this then they are both bastards and not vote should be cast who is worse, they simply are both evil.

Just last night I caught something in the news;

"In Saudi-Arabia, an Australian is serving time in jail and getting 300 whip lashes in 6 instalments in doses of fifty at a time every 2 weeks.

Why? Did he kill someone?

NO. HIS WIFE ALLEDGEDLY stole some medication in a hospital, and that's why he and his wife get the same punishment.

Now think yourself into this sort of mentality.

People who live by such rules.

Well, I don't knwo about you, but if I was Australian prime Minister, that would be enough reason for me to attack Saudi Arabia, if possible. People who makes laws like this and live like that and apply this onto others, should really be stopped, if necessary by force, whatever their race.

Does this make me a Faschist?

I don't think so, but they sure are.

To me those people are less than human.

[ 06. March 2003, 17:11: Message edited by: gomaos ]

[Gwydion]

"People who makes laws like this and live like that and apply this onto others, should really be stopped, if necessary by force, whatever their race.

Does this make me a Faschist?

I don't think so, but they sure are.

To me those people are less than human."

I agree they should be stopped Gomaos, and maybe sometimes force might be necesary (remember, force doesn't just mean violence), but I choke on your last sentence. ANYBODY BUT ANYBODY WHO BEGINS TO BELIEVE THAT OTHER HUMANS ARE LESS THAN THAT BEGINS TO LOSE THEIR OWN HUMANITY. Sorry, but it's true.

Now, to Iraq:

G. H. W. Bush (Bush the First) did not actually give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. He let Husain THINK that the world would turn a blind eye because of a pseudohistorical claim Iraq has to Kuwait. Also, Kuwait was slant-drilling under the border into Iraq.

Bush, and Thatcher (may the bitch get colon cancer) were eager to achieve a couple of things.

First: active field trials of new weaponry (Depleted Uranium tipped warheads. These are not NUCLEAR weapons, but are RADIOLOGICAL weapons, and have since been used in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo).

Second: it had recently been estimated that the oil in Iraq was not the 10% previously imagined- but more like 40% of the world's supplies (this has now been downplayed to 20% after info came out of central asia- afghanistan, uzbekistan, etc.).

Third: regaining control of the major arabic power, whose dictator they had helped prop up but who had gone "rogue".

There are other reasons, but they are more complex.

In the war that ensued, an estimated 300,000 iraqi civilians died, not to mention the millions since, under the sanctions (the figure 5000 children a month might help you though). Since the war 'ended'- ie the US and UK gave Saddam terms to meet- there have been 12 YEARS OF ILLEGAL BOMBING BY THE US AND UK! These so-called 'noflyzones' are not sanctioned by ANY international body, and the few times they have not flown out to blow up a village have been when the Turkish army invaded to massacre thousands of Kurdish families and bulldoze the villages. Now they want to escalate the war again, only this time with actual NUCLEAR weapons!

To Saddam: the Ba'th regime has been characterised by a mind-bending sense of cruelty and fear, where people are tortured not only for the good of the 'pan-arabic revolution', but "for their own good" as well. If someone dies under torture, "well, at least someone cared enough to try to re-form them" (literally- the creation of the new arab is a ba'thist goal). Remember, in it's early days, Ba'thist Iraq was being helped out by the E. German Police State. The paranoia fostered against spies and traitors is occasionally turned outwards and then turned back in on another minority or random group of people. Three generations now have been implicated in the murder of that of their parents, executed for treachery. And yet, many people not only fear Saddam, but like him. Why? He has made a country of illiterates literate. He has provided medical coverage for everyone (although, given the torture, I'd not go to the doctor myself ) He is nevertheless a murderous and heartless man, and ought to be removed, but that ought to be by the Iraqi people.

In fact, they tried that after the last Gulf War, only to find US army helicopters protecting the iraqi imperial guard which was attacking them.

Chemical weapons: despite all the claims that Saddam would use them last time he didn't. He may have used them against Iran, but they used them first anyway. Remember who sold them to him. What few are left (if any) would be futile against a US strike anyway. He doesn't need them, because the US is the aggresor- unless he dies, Husain wins. Let me repeat: Unless (and maybe even IF) he dies in a war with the US, Husain will emerge the political victor in the only polity that matters to him- Iraq.

And Saddam has never used chemical weapons on his own people. He doesn't need to, and it's too crude for his refined taste. The incident at Halabja involved CS and other gasses which were developed by the Soviets and sold to Iran. Iraq possessed the same chemicals, but the inactive part of the gas was of US origin. This, like the radiation readings in southern iraq, has been verified by scientists but ignored by the press.

We will never be free until we stop letting somebody else do everything for us.

T. ar la.

[somnif]

Gwydion,

You have a wonderful knack for summarising political

situations consisely with good, factual information!

(note to others: have a glance through Gwydion's

previous posts if to see what I mean)

So where do you harvest the majority of your

information from?

[mesq]

Whats the difference?? The world elite are just shapeshifting reptilian aliens manipulating our energy matrix and trying to hijack a ride through the photon belt..

I know Torsten agrees :D

[Torsten]

I give up Mesq

Some people seem to think I am a reptile myself, while others want me to join the fight against the reptilian overlords.

What are we humans going to do when we don't have any more scapegoats? Burn, Witch, burn!

[Auxin]

"Depleted Uranium tipped warheads. These are not NUCLEAR weapons, but are RADIOLOGICAL weapons"

The correct term is ILLEGAL RADIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Why is it my country never has to obey international law? Bush would drop ebola on Iraq if he thought it would make him some money (and if he knew how to spell ebola that is).

[Auxin]

It seems we arent restricting ourselves to radiological and conventional warfare tactics in Iraq anymore, heres a preview of our next war crime:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=383006US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq

A article from http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtmlThe truth about war

[gomaos]

CS-gas?

Is that where Chemical Shaman got his name?

Anyhu, looks like we won't have to wait much longer:

Bush writes off UN vote

A DEFIANT President George W. Bush yesterday declared the US intended to protect itself from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and did not need the United Nations approval to do so.

President Bush said he was not keen for conflict but diplomacy had failed to disarm Iraq.

He was speaking only hours before Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was to report to the UN Security Council.

"My job is to protect America and that is exactly what I'm going to do," Mr Bush said. "If we need to act, we will act and we really don't need UN approval. When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."

But he put more pressure on the Security Council by vowing to press ahead on Monday with the US and British-backed second resolution authorising war even if it did not have the numbers.

"Yes, we'll call for a vote. You bet, it's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam," he said.

Asked if he meant war, President Bush said: "As far as ultimatums and all the speculation about what may or may not happen after next week, we'll just wait and see."

The President said that diplomacy was in its final stages and "for those who urge more diplomacy, I would simply say that diplomacy has not worked".

In only his second press conference during US prime-time television, President Bush explicitly told Dr Blix that the US would accept no ambiguity in his report.

"The world needs him to answer a single question: 'Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441?' " he said.

On Wednesday, Dr Blix said a yes or no answer to that question was unwise. He was expected to again give a mixed assessment in today's report.

On one hand he was to give an upbeat assessment of recent Iraqi efforts to co-operate, but on the other, present a damning report showing Iraq's biological weapons were still unaccounted for.

And he concurred with claims by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq was secretly building new missiles to replace the banned Al Samoud rockets it was destroying.

The report, written two weeks ago, disputes Iraq's claims that in 1991 it destroyed 21,000 litres of biological agent, including 10,000 litres of anthrax, it was known to have stored at al Hakam.

"There is credible information available to (inspectors) that indicates that the bulk agent, including anthrax, was in fact deployed during the 1991 Gulf war," the report says. "The question then arises as to what happened to it after the war.

"It therefore seems highly probable that the destruction of the bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at al Hakam in July August 1991, did not occur."

Dr Blix does not rule out the chance of Iraq developing, building or acquiring mobile biological weapons laboratories since 1991, another claim by the US.

The Blix report contains 29 "clusters" of unresolved issues.

But nations opposed to war will seize on a program suggested by Dr Blix that would lead to the Iraqis destroying these weapons.

France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria are all pushing for a peaceful solution through continued disarmament.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw confirmed reports the UK was looking at watering down the second resolution to ease concerns of the undecided nations.

"There's certainly a possibility of an amendment and that's something we're looking at," Mr Straw said, arriving in New York.

The British want a short deadline attached to the resolution which would give Saddam a few days to come clean.

Pakistan's UN Ambassador Munir Akram, one of the undecided, said if the British amendment was substantive enough, "we will respond positively".

But President Bush said Saddam was clearly not disarming and he was not enthusiastic about the British resolution should it delay events further.

"We're in the final stages of diplomacy," Mr Bush said. "I don't like war. I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope."

..................................

Well there you go.

The US NEEDS TO PROTECT ITSELF against the thread of this lunatic maniac who wants to invade them!

Can't argue with that!

[mesq]

I guess the World Domination by the USA will soon be complete.... what lies in store next?? Microchipping?