Subject:
|
Belgium & Norway [Re: What about the first?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:27:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> [snip]
> > > Arafat is
> > > just another dictator that needs to go.
> >
> >
> > ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756709.stm
> >
> > …as are others in the Israeli “military”.
>
> Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize
> too.
Who is "they"? The decision outlined above was taken by *Belgium's* "Supreme
Court". As their name implies the "Norwegian Nobel Committee" is actually based
in *NORWAY*.
The prize was actually shared by Rabin, Arafat and Peres. Their work was
inspirational, but Netanyahu subsequently undermined it.
BTW: When Rabin was murdered by an Israeli extremist, who did his widow blame:
a) Arafat?
b) Netanyahu?
Clue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1023353.stm
>
> [snip]
> > Do your homework:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2702147.stm
> > “Investment in Iraqi oil fields could see the country double its crude output
> > following a change of regime, a leading opposition figure has told world
> > leaders. Adil Abdul Mahdi, president of the Iran-based Supreme Council of the
> > Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that, with an injection of $30-40bn,
> > production could be raised to 5-6 million barrels per day by 2010.”
> >
> >
> >
> > > Iraqi oil production only generates about 10 billion a year. Do
> > > the math.
> >
> > It is ~$10B under sanctions – are you suggesting lifting sanctions will make • no
> > difference!
> >
> > Do your homework:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2688401.stm
> > “In its oil-producing heyday in the late 1970s, Iraq was producing 3.5 million
> > barrels a day. Industry analysts estimate that with large-scale investment in
> > the country's rusting industrial infrastructure, this could be upped to six
> > million. This would make Iraq the fourth largest producer, behind Saudi Arabia
> > (8.8 million), the US (7.2 million) and Russia (7.1 million).”
>
> All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as
> a parting gift.
Does it? What were your figures based on?
>
> > > >
> > > > > Obviously Iraq's oil has little to do it anything with the possiblity of • war.
> > > >
> > > > Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer
> > > place?
> > >
> > > Stealing oil is not an objective.
> >
> > What is the objective then?
>
> Freeing the Iraqi people and getting rid of a dictator.
Why start with Iraq? Why not free the Palestinians 1st? Or at the very least
stop supporting their oppression?!
Read this about the ethical case for "regime change" in Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897003,00.html
==+==
Against those who have suffered under Saddam in the past must be set the
humanitarian catastrophe that the UN says may leave up to 10 million hungry.
The World Health Organisation estimates that 100,000 Iraqis could be casualties
and another 400,000 affected by disease and displacement.
Expert NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty utter similar warnings -
concerns candidly shared by Clare Short. From within Iraq itself, meanwhile,
come first-hand accounts of the terror and anger that the prospect of attack
elicits. Yet from the US, at least, comes little but vague promises of
minimised civilian casualties and "post-liberation" nation-building. To gauge
the value of such pledges, one need only look at Afghanistan
==+==
> >
> [snip]
> > > > No answer?
> > >
> > > Didn't feel one was necesary considering only 47 percent of the US supports
> > > action without the approval of the UN.
> >
> >
> > Are you part of that 47%?
>
> No. I think the UN should be spearheading the whole thing. Any entity that is
> not prepared to use force when neccessary, has no power to do anything.
>
> [snip]
> > I'm sure all sorts of trash support Bush; is he responsible for them? Is he
> > responsible for Enron? [that’s maybe a bad question ;-\ ]
>
> Actually the Democrats and Environmentalists were responsible for Enron. The
> Democrats imposed price caps on the electric prices. Demand increased and the
> Environmentalists prevented Enron from increasing supply (to meet that demand)
> by building new power plants. With no way to decrease demand by raising
> prices, you have rolling blackouts. You also get company that is forced to use
> creative accounting because their ability to conduct buisness legitimately was
> crippled.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > ... but what 60%? ;)
>
> The 60% that doesn't support double standards with regards to UN resolutions.
>
> Perhaps this will help you understand my postion a little better. On a scale of
> 1 to 10, 10 being the best and 1 being the worst. The US invading Iraq without
> the support of the UN would be a 3. Nuking the entire Earth would be a 2. Doing
> nothing would be a 1.
Luckily, there are more then those 3 options.
Scott A
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| [snip] (...) Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize too. [snip] (...) no (...) All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as a parting gift. (...) war. (...) Freeing the Iraqi (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
