[Powderworks] NMOC - Is Saudi Arabia next?
David A. Brass
Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Last year there were rumours and jokes from the American far-right that
(while in US troops were in Afganistan) that "Iraq is next" and now I keep
hearing (from the media) the insinuation "Saudi Arabia is next". Maybe
just a rumour (or cruel joke) but, it would only figure. I also noticed
an increased association of Saudi citizens with the Taliban, etc and I
dont't think this is just simply a coincidence...
This war may go on for years as the American "bliztrieg" sweeps across the
Middle East and North Africa in it's all out quest for oil...
David A. Brass
--- Timothy Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thanks Tom. A very nice summary and statement.
> As an American, I wish that our government would act with more integrity
> and international conscience. Instead, I believe all our government's
> actions boil down to pure capitalism and it really doesn't matter what
> party is in power. It's just that Mr. Bush has decided to be more
> and provide more decisive leadership as some of the super patriots here
> the states believe (not my opinion however).
> "Who can stand in the way when there's a dollar to be made?" - This
> the first MO song that really caught my attention.
> Take care.
> Tim Towns
> Tom Spencer <firstname.lastname@example.org>@cs.colorado.edu on 03/28/2003
> Sent by: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Powderworks] Lotsa' stuff
> Dear Dan, Jacques and fellow Powderworkers,
> Hello! I live in Australia, where, as in 99.9999% of
> the world, most people watch American TV shows, listen
> to American music, pick up on American ideas and
> phrases and have heard of the American Constitution
> and the wonderful values such as free speech that it
> embodies. Most non-Americans like America. After 911
> France's daily newspaper 'Le Monde' said, in sympathy,
> 'We are all American'. So the suggestion that
> America's political opponents such as France hate
> American culture and its freedoms is just nonsense.
> What people overseas find nauseating is the hypocrisy
> of certain aspects of the US Government. For years the
> US Govt (and other western governments such as that of
> Australia) said NOTHING about human rights abuses in
> Iraq, just as it said NOTHING about human rights
> abuses in other countries, but in fact for years sold
> dictators such as Saddam Hussein the materials with
> they did their worst.
> The West is so sure that Iraq has weapons of mass
> destruction, perhaps because its defence contractors
> kept the receipts.
> Jacques points out the terrible suffering Saddam
> inflicted during the Iran-Iraq war. But the US backed
> IRAQ during that war. It feared the Iranian religious
> fundamentalism of the Ayatollah. It much preferred the
> secularist Saddam, and was happy to let him stay in
> power afterward, which was when he performed many of
> the atrocities Jacques referred to.
> That secularism of Saddam's is the precisely why Osama
> Bin Laden calls Iraq 'infidel', and why, again, there
> is absolutely NO evidence connecting Iraq to 911.
> Saudis, not Iraqis, were overwhelmingly predominant
> that day. Bush is simply bullshitting the American
> people in suggesting otherwise, just as Clinton
> deceived America by bombing a Sudanese pharmaceuticals
> factory the day that Monica Lewinsky gave testimony
> against him.
> Given that free speech and human rights are vital,
> isn't 'embedding' the media in Iraq a disgusting
> restriction of free speech, a reaction to the vivid
> news coverage that stopped the Vietnam War? And isn't
> the detention at Guantanamo Bay without lawyers or
> contact with the outside world a denial of the human
> rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, which Mr
> Rumsfeld now wants Iraq to apply (quite rightly) to US
> soldiers held by Iraq? (Not to mention the buckets of
> money that US companies are pouring into China, a
> terrible violator of human rights) The current Bush
> agenda is not really about protecting free speech and
> human rights, but a distraction from the 'war on
> terror', which should uphold these things.
> Finally, for Jacques to talk about Saddam starving the
> people of Iraq is to over-simplify matters. It was the
> US Govt that repeatedly insisted that Iraq had more
> weapons of mass destruction, despite the UN's UNSCOM
> weapons inspectors clearing 90% of such Iraqi weapons,
> by 1995, according to Scott Ritter, the head of 14
> inspections, in his film 'In Shifting Sands'. Thus,
> under the agreement made after the 1991 Gulf War, the
> UN did not lift the sanctions against Iraq which were
> starving children. Despite distinguished military
> service in the US Marines and elsewhere Ritter
> resigned from UNSCOM upon concluding that the US Govt
> was using the inspections process to try to provoke
> war with Iraq, rather than to rid Iraq of its weapons
> of mass destruction.
> The US was founded on the noblest traditions of free
> speech and human rights, but Bush and his posse are
> currently undermining those traditions, rather than
> applying them to the worldwide activities of the US
> Government, as the rest of the world would like to
> I would also like to endorse Geordie's suggestion that
> we read widely. Robert Fisk's web site is a cracker.
> An award-winning journalist, he is uniquely qualified
> in having been in the Middle East for longer than most
> other reporters.
> Tom Spencer
> Put down that weapon, or we'll all be gone.
> You must be crazy, if you think you're strong.
> - Midnight Oil
> I disown any ads associated with this email.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
> - Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
> Powderworks mailing list
> Powderworks mailing list
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!