A lap around "The Ring"

Mitch_A wrote:
> John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in
> politics that the jury forgot what its job is.
>
> Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do.

What money was taken, by whom, and for who's benefit? Who has been
arrested? How did this benefit Saddam? How did it contribute at all
toward killing half a million Iraqi children during the previous decade?!!?

You and JP are sorely getting facts and timelines mixed up.


> Just to be clear as to what your trying to argue about...
> The US is wrong and Saddam was right.

Where the hell do you get that? Saddam was a total madman, albeit a
madman bought and paid for by the US. I agree that the US was wrong -
wrong to put his party in power in the first place, and wrong to wage an
illegal war killing millions of innocent Iraqis.

But you'll never find me saying Saddam was "right". Right about....what?


> The friends of Saddam that live
> inside the UN were getting rich off the blood of Iraqi children and somehow
> the US is at fault for killing millions during the sanctions?...

The sanctions were from Resolution 661 of August 1990. Why are people
trying to equate this with supposed oil-for-food? Kofi Annan personally
criticised the US for this at the time.

> You can call it what you want but Iraq is now in its own free hands and its
> up to them to join civilized society.

By "own free hands" you mean that the US has provided another leader for
them, as happened last time. You could be right, but surely you can see
why they wouldn't exactly be jumping for joy.

> Do you have such deep concern for the Iraqi people or is it blind hatred of
> GW and the US that has clouded your viewpoint?

Sorry Mitch, but please don't try to shoehorn me into some convenient
little labelled box. You will never hear me say I hate the US. Bush,
well, different matter, but I'm not close enough to see what he does
locally. My concern is with international law, and with the Iraqi
people, and my truck is as much with my own country as with yours. The
only country in this I have some respect for is the French, but you guys
were spun such lies and half-truths about the French that I don't even
want to go there :-)

> Maybe its a slanderous
> European media? I dont know but something is wholly wrong across the pond.

I think the same ;-)

We obviously have very different viewpoints, but I do very much
appreciate that you know the difference between an argument and a
debate! It seems a rare gift on this issue!

Mitch_A wrote:
> Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy
> Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone.

Just for discussion sake, what if you do like their products, but
they're all outsourced to China and the CEO takes 100 million dollars?

Is there a point at which a halt should be called, or does the old
"Reaganomics" apply, of what's good for the money markets is good for
the country?

Mitch_A wrote:
> Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the
> US....

Well, you seem to have invented the US as my enemy, and had the US not
put an internet together I'm pretty sure someone else would have.

If we stoop to that you can start thanking us Scots for your roads, your
TVs and your telephones.... ;-)

JP wrote:

> "Mitch_A" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in
>>politics that the jury forgot what its job is.
>>
>>Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do.
>
> Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't
> help either.

Probably saw the footage from Abu Ghraib and thought that was the in
thing....

Mitch_A wrote:
> Are you kidding John? You throw some meaningless stats out that are based
> in ignorance and havent anything to do with reality yet its the basis of
> your entire argument?

The stats come from the UN, and are not disputed by the US.

Am I to understand *you* do dispute these, and are about to provide
evidence of which the UN and your government are unaware?

> You cant put a number on all of the good things the US has done both from
> the private and public sector.

No-one is arguing that the US has done good things, although they've
done more than their fair share of bad things also. The point is that in
the specific case you cited, giving aid to other countries, the US falls
well short of the standards agreed to by the UN.

That was the only assertion I made, backed up with the facts deemed so
necessary.

JP wrote:
>>>Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of
>>>the operation.
>>>
>>>Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than
>>>they are?
>
> Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN people you
> mention, blaming the the US ?

I've already posted them. Hans von Spooneck, who replaced Denis
Halliday. His resignation was only the first public expression of what
was desribed as an unprecedented rebellion within the UN against the
manipulation of the sanctions.

In an television interview he stated "I had been instructed to implement
a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy
that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children
and adults. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of
control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the
Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will
slaughter those responsible"

Please note, the security council to which he refers comprises only five
permanent members, US, UK, China, France and Russia. The US and the UK
were the only ones to veto supplies under the sanctions, and were the
members to which Halliday refers.

And those who committed crimes are paying for it.

I bet you agree with the irony of beheading innocents in orange jumpsuits
also.

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in > Probably saw the footage
from Abu Ghraib and thought that was the in
> thing....

I can ignore the insult but when someone walks in on the backend of a
conversation then has the cahones to comment speaks loudly about you....

When did I ever say that?

Its the attacks I have an issue with not rational discussion.


"Ruud Dingemans" > wrote in message > (I don't follow this
discussion, but I found this 'If you're not with
> us, you're against us' rationale simplistic to say the least.)
>
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank -24)

Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad
things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope some
small amount of reason enters into your thought process

Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. I
didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things are
looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for and
which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party likes to
think.

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in > No-one is arguing that
the US has done good things, although they've
> done more than their fair share of bad things also.

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
> >>>Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of
> >>>the operation.
> >>>
> >>>Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this
than
> >>>they are?
> >
> > Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN people
you
> > mention, blaming the the US ?
>
> I've already posted them.

No you didn't. At least not to me. *You* posted quotes. I'm looking for
a link.


Hans von Spooneck, who replaced Denis
> Halliday. His resignation was only the first public expression of what
> was desribed as an unprecedented rebellion within the UN against the
> manipulation of the sanctions.
>
> In an television interview he stated "I had been instructed to implement
> a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy
> that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children
> and adults. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of
> control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the
> Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will
> slaughter those responsible"
>
> Please note, the security council to which he refers comprises only five
> permanent members, US, UK, China, France and Russia. The US and the UK
> were the only ones to veto supplies under the sanctions, and were the
> members to which Halliday refers.


Proof (link, i.e.) showing your claim about the US/UK here ? Exactly
what kind of supplies are you referring too ? I've posted some showing
otherwise.