Nelson Mandela describes US as 'threat to world peace.'

[HemlockGrey]

Ten years of sanctions and bombing have made it otherwise.

You know, Hussein has money. He builds himself a new grand palace or mosque every other week.

[Graeme Dice]

Making claims that the latest evildoer-of-the-week "has or may have sometime in the near future nuclear weapons" seems to be a trend in recent years. Even dirt-poor, starving, disorganized terrorists sects seem to be capable of making million dollar nuclear weapons these days!

Find a country or group that has a level of technological capability equivalent to the U.S. in 1945. That country has the capability to build nuclear weapons. All you need essentially, is a big block of graphite for your breeder, and some conventional explosives for the trigger.

[Cal Wright]

Ah, just shoot em all, and let 'God' sort em out...

[weemadando]

Mandela is just joining the new international sport: "Bash America!" It's fun and safe and even dictators and impotent leaders of impovrished nations can play. One of my favorite examples was the meeting regarding slavery and racial justice held in South Africa IIRC where the US was bashed for its slave days TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO, yet slavery is ALIVE AND WELL in the Sudan and other AFRICAN nations....makes you wonder why we should even care what happens to the rest of the world since these same bashers are the ones lining up for that US Aid welfare check. :roll:

Well actually slavery is "allegedly" bigger today than it ever has been in the past. And unfortunately it is still the first world nations whom are benefitting.

And remember that a slave is not neccessarily unpaid. They are a worker who is in bondage to their boss and has their liberties restricted. Kind of like illegal mexican immigrants that work for people. Its the same in Australia with "refugees" who make it past the screen of patrol boats, working in their ethnic communities. THey have no civil liberties because they are not citizens.

[weemadando]

http://www.africancrisis.org/photos7.asp

www.africancrisis.org

Pictures do tell a thousand words:

********

Let's take a peek at history by looking at some
publications which are now almost 30 years old.

Below is a Liberation Magazine called The Zimbabwe Review. It is the mouthpiece of the ANC (African National Congress - of Zimbabwe)

Take a look above where I drew some big red arrows. There you will see they had offices in Cuba and East Germany. They like communists...

They advise their black readers to listen to Radio Berlin. Read the paragraph which is headed "Keeps you up to date on". Note it mentions "peace, national liberation and social liberation" - in other words... Communism...

Africa's Bin Laden

Joshua Nkomo led ZAPU which was sponsored by Russia. Robert Mugabe led Zanu(PF) which was sponsored by China. Nkomo authorised the shooting down of civilian airliners. In the late 1970's his terrorists used hand-held missile launchers to shoot down two Rhodesian airways Viscount turbo-prop planes, each containing about 50 holiday-makers. The heat-seeking missiles struck the aircraft engines. The one plane crashed into the bush and hit a gully and broke into pieces. Everyone was killed. The other crash- landed in the African bush. The civilians survived their ordeal. However, the terrorists knew the flight paths and had estimated where the plane would crash and they had a team on the ground which went to the plane. They found the survivors and KILLED THEM ALL!!

Then Mr Nkomo appeared on BBC TV with a huge smile, literally jumping out of his skin from sheer delight, taking responsibility for this cold-blooded slaughter of innocent civilians.

But in Africa, terrorism can be good for a political career. It sort of proves that you are fit to rule... Africa's Bin Laden went on to greater things. In the 1980's after a power struggle with Robert Mugabe, he was promoted to the Vice-President of Zimbabwe. He held this position until he died.


******************

All of the African "liberators" including Mandela are fucking COMMUNISTS.

The fact that they had support from Eastern Europe doesn't make them communists. Look at Iran, Palestine, Libya or any other place that was opposed to the West and its basic capitalist values.

Also the fact that apartheid is so strongly against the communist ideal would have made them prime candidates for support.

[Colonel Olrik]

Well actually slavery is "allegedly" bigger today than it ever has been in the past. And unfortunately it is still the first world nations whom are benefitting.

And remember that a slave is not neccessarily unpaid. They are a worker who is in bondage to their boss and has their liberties restricted. Kind of like illegal mexican immigrants that work for people. Its the same in Australia with "refugees" who make it past the screen of patrol boats, working in their ethnic communities. THey have no civil liberties because they are not citizens.

You've got a good point, there. The E.U also has glass ceilings in this issue, with all the cheap labour supply from the eastern countries. Many times they are maintained almost as slaves, without the authorities caring too much about the situation. It's a different degree of slavery, granted, but this problem should receive more attention before or while trying to prevent african slave markets.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Before attacking Iraq, we should find Bin Laden. Saddam's a crazed lunatic that needs to be stopped, but I don't think a military operation will do it.

[Raptor 597]

Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

A little more cynicism would greatly benefit the American people. George W. Bush's war on Al-Queda is stalled, and everyone knows it. He can't find the fuckers, he doesn't have a clue where they are, and all he's done is drive them out of Afghanistan to different hiding places around the world. He also has serious problems on the home front; the economy is in trouble, the telecom and IT industries are downright hemorrhagic, unemployment is rising, the stock market is tanking, and he refuses to take anything more than window-dressing actions to punish or rein in the perpetrators of corporate fraud because he's one of them, not one of us.

So in the midst of all this trouble, all of a sudden he decides that after ten years of leaving Saddam alone, it's time to go kick some ass in Iraq. Now, as I've said before, it's true that Saddam Hussein is an asshole. But it's also true that the world is full of other assholes that the US doesn't give a shit about, and even this particular asshole was considered a back-burner issue until Dubya suddenly decided that he needed to distract the voters before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Doesn't anybody read between the lines any more?

Reading between the lines is fun. I often catch myself being a compulsive liar, IRL and people believe me so I'd make a great REpublican or Democrat But leading the Right Wing has the guns too pull off wiping out the left only if a Radical coul tie down the Army. Though I plan on doiung opposit using the Military too kill America, courtest me Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

[Crown]

Okay I really do agree with Lord Wong on this issue, in Australia 70% of the electorate is against sending troops to fight Iraq, unless there is a very good reason. And while Stravo I can understand your personally rational fear of a madman with Nuclear Weapons, there is something that just doesn't seem right about the reason's Georgie is giving us.

Simply put Iraq tried once before to make Nukes, what happened? Israel bombed them. No warning or foremention, just bombed them. The US describes Pearl Harbour as the day of infamy, and the Israeli attack as a good pre-emptive strike against a potential threat. But I digress, the point that I am making is that Iraq was building a civilian nuclear reactor, who's purpose (and obviously this is open to contention) was to supply electricity to the masses. It was recieving support, technical from the French, so I assume that the Atomic Energy commission knew about it. The Israeli's bombed it before it was even completed thus ensuring that Iraq couldn't even have a chance to build a bomb.

So I guess after all of this history lesson, my point being that if Iraq was building a bomb Israel would have bombed it already, I mean it's not as if they would be punished for it or anything.

[Darth Yoshi]

You've got a good point about the Israelis, Crown. They do pretty much whatever they want and no one in the First World gives a damn. So if any of the other Mid-East nations even blink, Israel bombs the shit out of them.

[kheegster]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned OIL yet. Saudi Arabia are obviously a bunch of fundamentalist bastards ruled by a dictatorship, and it's not exactly the most reliable supply of crude that the US can rely on. Get rid of Saddam and the US will get both a new supply of oil AND a foil to Iran.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned OIL yet. Saudi Arabia are obviously a bunch of fundamentalist bastards ruled by a dictatorship, and it's not exactly the most reliable supply of crude that the US can rely on. Get rid of Saddam and the US will get both a new supply of oil AND a foil to Iran.

Saudi Arabia supply's the whole of 9% of the United States oil, and the whole gulf region combine about 11-12%. I doubt many would wish to see that number go up.

America has more oil related interests in an end to the fighting in Chechnya then access to Iraq's oil. Peace in Chechnya would let Russia and other Caspian Sea nations export a crap load more oil over the pipeline that runs though that area. Currently the Caspian is thought to have as much oil in it as Saudi Arabia had 30 years ago! That is to say the least a shit load.

[Sea Skimmer]

Okay I really do agree with Lord Wong on this issue, in Australia 70% of the electorate is against sending troops to fight Iraq, unless there is a very good reason. And while Stravo I can understand your personally rational fear of a madman with Nuclear Weapons, there is something that just doesn't seem right about the reason's Georgie is giving us.

Simply put Iraq tried once before to make Nukes, what happened? Israel bombed them. No warning or foremention, just bombed them. The US describes Pearl Harbour as the day of infamy, and the Israeli attack as a good pre-emptive strike against a potential threat. But I digress, the point that I am making is that Iraq was building a civilian nuclear reactor, who's purpose (and obviously this is open to contention) was to supply electricity to the masses. It was recieving support, technical from the French, so I assume that the Atomic Energy commission knew about it. The Israeli's bombed it before it was even completed thus ensuring that Iraq couldn't even have a chance to build a bomb.

So I guess after all of this history lesson, my point being that if Iraq was building a bomb Israel would have bombed it already, I mean it's not as if they would be punished for it or anything.

Actually, Iraq's nuclear program kept going long after they lost their first reactor. A number of facilities were built later and quite a lot of enriched uranium imported that could be used for bomb making, Iraq got around the need for a reactor. All they need is a seperation plant, and it recently came out that they were buying up equipment for such recently, likely to replace what they lost in 1991.

In 1991 most facilities were destroyed. However when UN weapons inspectors arrived to look them over, they found that much of the debris had been spread out, searched, and then piled back together already.

Still what they managed to find information, which placed Iraq about 6 months away from a useful weapon, one small enough to be delivered via Scud or tactical bomber. The UN team hauled off most of their uranium, but no one knows exactly how much the French and others sold them. We also don’t know how much they recovered from the debris before the UN showed up.

Bombs often demolish buildings but don't destroy the interior contents, so it could be a substantial amount. Anyway all they need is a couple years with 1940s technology to get somthing big and crude. Throw that on one of the stand off missiles they have left over from there badgers and you have a working weapons system.

[Enlightenment]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned OIL yet. Saudi Arabia are obviously a bunch of fundamentalist bastards ruled by a dictatorship, and it's not exactly the most reliable supply of crude that the US can rely on. Get rid of Saddam and the US will get both a new supply of oil AND a foil to Iran.

There are several oil-related issues to keep in mind here. First and foremost, the national insane asylum is currently populated almost entirely with Texass oilmen. Most of these nutcases have a considerable personal financial stake in the oil business in general and the price of oil in particular.

In the short term, beating the war drums drives up the price of oil, which is extremely good for personal profits of the Bush family and its associated friends, both in the White House and elsewhere, including the bin Laden family in Saudi...

In the medium term, starting a war with Iraq will further increase the price of oil, which is even better for the Bush family and its associates.

In the long term, the objective is probably not as much to secure a non-Saudi oil supply as to secure a reasonable oil supply under permanent US occupation. Defeating what's left of Iraq will be fairly straight forward, what'll be left after the anihilation of the Iraqi army will resemble Afghanistan--and you're kidding yourself if you think US troops will be pulling out of either Afghanistan or a 'liberated' Iraq in any time scale shorter than a decade.

That said, oil is very likely not the only reason that Dumbya the Shrub wants to get rid of Saddam. Other key factors behind the war against Iraq likely include Saddam's unwillingness to die when Bush Sr. told him to, the need to distract the US public from Shrub's failure to kill or capture the al Qaida leadership, the need to perpetuate the 'terrorism crisis' necessary as a pretext for ever-expanding security powers, and the need to keep the voters from doing something so unAmerican as voting democrat in the midterm elections. The extent of the domestic benefits for Dumbya the Shrub are such that a major campaign against Iraq would seem to be inevitable.

In the long run, however, Shrub's grab for an improved domestic position will very likely destroy what little prestiege the US has left in the 3rd world. The resulting fallout is difficult to estimate but is highly unlikely to be that much of a good thing for the United States of Ignorant Rednecks.

[Crown]

*Snif, Snif*

I smell flame bait!

*Ducks and covers!*

[Crown]

I should apologise Enlightenment; I know what you mean, and on many levels I agree with you, however I can just see where this is gonna lead to!

[weemadando]

*Snif, Snif*

I smell flame bait!

*Ducks and covers!*

Dive! Dive! Dive!

Prepare for silent lurking!

[Crown]

Gotta love that Aussie sense of humour ehh?