posted
Daddy's Unfinished Business: G.W.'s Obsession with Iraq and Saddam
George W is on the verge of drawing America into another war with Iraq. This time around, it is unclear why Americans and the World should support an attack against Iraq. The over-flogged bogey of "terrorism" is once again used to hide George W's real motives. It is well documented that Saudi Arabia and Iran, but not Iraq, is largely responsible for the spread of terrorism in general, and the September 11 attacks in particular. The Al-Qaeda that escaped from Afghanistan fled to Iran, not Iraq.
But, George W is determined to revisit his daddy's unfinished business from the 1991 Gulf War, the assassination of Saddam Hussein.
What's with all this arrogance of the US leadership in openly calling for the assassination of another country's leader? Enough already, Mr. George W.
Over to you Waypoint. Posts: 65 | From: Good Old USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Fumi, I thought you disappeared for a while. It seems like ages since you were in this county. Good to hear from you.
Anyhow, you know I have come to liken you to only dwell on issues opposite attract to George W. I wondered if we have anything at all in common. I had wanted for you to comment on the police brutality in California, Oklahoma city and the never ending rape and exploitation of our young children since your such a smart 'ass' specialist and watchdog on George W. bent on the civil right violation of others. I backed out because they are not enemy combatant. Your favorite term for civil right violation. Talk about a democrat.
ON SA-DDAMNED: Any person [Saddam] who considers or classifies himself as a leader of a nation, uses biological weapon against his own people simply because they disagreed with him must be exterminated by any means necessary. He is a repellent bastard and a mad dog xenophobic racist. The United Nation have massive dose of evidence that Saddam is still manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. We have heard this testimony from his former mad scientists and even from his closest relatives. Consider him a dinassour.
We will all be damned including you 20 years later..... If it is the single most important and conspicious achievement for Gerage W, he gets my vote. This man is not civilized and is a threat to the world. His faculty is very similar to Abacha and typical of satanic verses.
SAUDI ARABIA/Aikada I am no friend or fan of Saudi Arabia/Crown Prince Adullah, But your comparison with Saudi Arabia is indeed jaggered edged and merits no sense and sensibility.The difference between Saddam and Saudi Arabia is that the former has a policy and on record for aiding and abetting the perpetrators[Jihads]. Saudi Arabia do not have such any policy, unwritten or public. However, they are guilty for not cracking down on terrorist. They are not pretty in this department but are making efforts. In addition, they are not considered enemy of the state and they are not being persuaded to allow weapons of mass destruction inspected by the United Nation. Saddamn must be hiding something for refusal to allow inspectors. That alone is enough to send him to hell.
George W/father And Sa-ddamned
Too bad his father gave Saddamn chance to reform himself. As you know Bill Clinton attempted to remove Saddam but became a lameduck. George W like any other President will do what is for the best interest of his country and the world.
Remember what it took for Ghadafi to be a changed man? Ghadafi was brought to his knees by the Geeper after repeated effort to mellow down. Ghadafi was an expansionist with an encursion to make Chad part of his colony and almost picked a fight against Biafranigeria. He became a nuisance to the world, put Panam out of business and raised oil prices to the max. He practically held the world hostage. He took terrorism to a new level.
Here, we have a man [Saddam},whose dream is to exterminate a Jewish nation, use biological weapon against his own people. I say take him out. For George W, we know it is a jobless economy but we will hail thee in any way possible against Sa-ddamned. My wish is to make him a dinassour. I say nuke'm.
Hail Biafra.
[ July 20, 2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Jesse has warned us to stay away from the Bushes, we heeded that warning, but the friends of his father in the Supreme Court imposed him on us and this is what we are getting.
It is those that God want to destroy, he seal their mind and blind their sense of reasoning and W is just acting like one.
He is going to meeet his waterloo if he dare goes after Saddaam.
posted
GW appears to be serving out the second term of office that his Daddy never got. I agree that all this nonsense about Iraq is nothing but a son attempting to complete his father's unfinished business in Baghdad.
___________________ The Ikenga Shall Never Fall Again Posts: 110 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
It is all about OIL. Bush and Cheney are both oil men. Bush Senior is an oil man. Saddam Hussein controls 10% of the world's oil supply. Saudi Arabia has become nationalistic and a threat to the oil interests of Bush and Cheney. Therefore, Bush and Cheney want to take control of Iraq's oil. It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or chemical and bioligical weapons. It ddoes not even have anything with America's interests abroad. It is all about Bush and Cheney - two men who are greedy about oil.
[ September 04, 2002, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Daud ]
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
After Saddam Hussein is removed, the enslavement of the Arab World will be complete. Arafat is in a cage in Ramallah. Egypt is a pauper nation, depending on the US for aid. Assad is dead. Sharon is running wild over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This coming war is about the American royal family (Bush family) carrying on family business. It has nothing to do with American interest in the region. It is personal between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You are all DEAD WRONG just like you have been with your country called Nigeria. First Gowon was your goddamned savior, you hailed a pathology name Murtala for standing up against the West; Obasanjo, a Yoruba will balance the scale, Don't forget Shehu Shagari an Islamic elementary school teacher, followed by Buhari as what Nigeria needed. Then came,IBB married a christian and Igbo, he became your man and your hero, well the BIG BAD WOLF Abacha, you even campaigned for him for life. And of course your most recent hero Abubakar and Obasanjo as your God sent and born again christain.
Each and everyone of these stoogies you hailed when they took over became your nightmare. You have had 12 rulers in just 20 years and they have managed to send their best and brightest, you and I on exile. I left your country early 1979 because I saw terror written all over it. A country that does not believe in merit, human right or freedom no matter how hard you work. Affirmative action became a norm for the North, no matter how silly they were. I am not too proud living in a foreign land, is all because of your leaders. But I'm happy though.
I guess you Nigerians are used to bad leadership just like your used to flies gracing your food. When are you guys gonna learn about leadership and human right? Saddam is a threat to his own people and threat to the world especially Isreal. He used biological weapon against his own people, killed many opposed to him including his relatives. His conccubine for 30 years, last Thursday on ABC Downtown testified what a monster he is.
I am not very familiar with Nigerian politics after Obasanjo took over from Murtala and Shortly after Shagari. But after years of ignorant, I was priviledged to witness Abacha in 60 minutes and was appauled by his tactics and the number of heads of state after Shagari. My first glimps of Nigeria on CBS TV was Abacha, slumps and ghettos in Lagos.If you know this man, Abacha then you should be familiar with Saddam. Any man who attempts to kill his son is "Saddamnistic" . Saddam is suicidal and will nuke America and Isreal if chanced. You all will be affected. Libya killed 250 innocent men and women and took PANAM out of business. It took the Geeper[Ronald Reagan] a massive air strike to change Ghaddafi. Today, Ghaddafi has now agreed to pay 6 Billion dollars to the victims. He is barely noticed these days. In Kenya, many innocent Africans died for nothing due to terror. it tells you the extent these monsters.com will go to make a statement. What will it take to remove Saddam before US/Isreal and you becomes another victim? The US economy is now a jobless economy, thanks to the terrorist. Is that what you guys want, for Saddam to nuke America/Isreal and YOU before you see the light?
The 9/11 is "Hell Raiser 1" and who knows what the sequal would look like unless he is removed. Too bad George father did not finish the business but George W must to save the world and the existence of Isreal. Saddamn is a spokesperson for the TERRORISTS and the Arabs know it.
Each and everyone of you came to American to better your goddamned lives, what your country Nigeria could not do for you. If you read the history of Super powers, from Rome to Great Britain, they were conquerors who cared less about the country they colonized. What SUPER POWER would go to war, defeat you, feed, cloth you and rebuild your country for you but America? America does not operate under a notion of perfect system and Goerge bush may have an interest in the oil but it certainly benefits your goddamned existence in this country. You do not pay $1.39 per gallon any different from another American. If you live in America, either your for America or shut up especially when it comes to Arab terrorist. These people [moslems]are MONSTER.COM
Hail Biafra
[ September 16, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Iraq has decided to allow weapons inspectors to return. But, of course, Bush, the war monger, is not happy with that. His dual goal, oil and personal vendetta, will not be served even if there is not one single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. He wants to murder Saddam Hussein all in the name of war. Bush and Cheney want the oil fields of Iraq. Cheney is neck-deep in financial scandal and potential investigations, elections are around the corner. Hellooooooooooooooooooo! Can you say WAG THE DOG?
Waypoint1Biafra:
Do you plan to go and fight in Iraq?
Posts: 65 | From: Good Old USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I have a problem with a man like George Bush Jr. who keeps talking about international law and the duty of the United Nations, but he wants to attack a foreign country without getting permission from a majority in the United Nations.
America is not more at risk from Saddam than any other country. If this is about personal vendetta, Bush should just say so and stop trying to lie to the American people and the world.
Posts: 199 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Family Vendetta + Greed for Oil = Foreign Policy Disaster.
I support Nelson Mandela. Bush is wrong to use US military might to pursue his family vendetta and greed for oil.
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Saddam is a RESERVIOR DOG AND MUST BE WACKED. This is why I am concerned and you too.
FACTS
We know Saddamn has used biolgical weapon against his own people, including children, attempted to kill his own son and lunched a skud against Isreal from his country. This man delibrately manufactured a "Super Gun against Isreal. I wonder what his devil intent is?
REALITY If he is allowed a specialist and a manufacturer of bioligical weapon and gets a load of nuke in a briefcase, he may not use it against the United States directly. But it will be made available to infamous criminals like Osama Bin Ledan, Aikada and sleeper cells in New York against United States and eventually exported to Palestine to finish up our beloveth Isreal. This is not a theory it is reality.
BILL CLINTON And for those of you who think that this is a Family war. Bill Clinton attempted to remove Saddamn also. Remember the attack on Iraq during the Monica Luwinski/Paula Jones case. It was the air strike against Saddamn that the holywood Director Quinton Torronttino made the name 'WACK THE DOG and RESERVIOR DOG' famous with reference to Saddam. How soon do you guys forget? The difference between George W and Clinton is that the former is A GUN SLINGER and the later VOICE OF AMERICA otherwise every US president agrees that Saddamn is a threat to the free world.
Fumi my dear, I will not fight but my Taxes will definitely make a difference, as always. .
SUPPORT YOU INTERNATIONAL SHERIFF
The DOG must be Wacked. Right now George W is both your local and international sheriff that you must support.
Hail Biafra
[ September 18, 2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yvette because we have gone through the same thing all over with Saddam. He kicked the weapons inspectors out and regrouped.
Why did it take George W a speech and appeal to the United nation for Saddam to comply? Why did Saudi Arabia and some Middle Eastern countries willing to support military action against Saddam if the United Nations sanctions it? Because GW has a massive evidence against Saddam. Also watch your C-Span 2, congress is bending over for Bush.
Inspection and destruction of weapon is not the issue but Saddamn. You destroy them and inspectors gone, he will regroup. He is a threat to the world, a loose cannon if he gets a nuke and biological weapon. He serves as a command post to all moslem terrorists. He must go.
Hail Biafra
[ September 18, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
[quote] Saddamn has used biolgical weapon against his own people, [quote]
Waypoint, if Obasanjo decides to wipe out the Igbos will you say that he killed his own people? Or better yet why did you think it was so easy for Obasanjo to destroy Odi and Malus village but not Lagos or Ibadan where Ige was killed? The Kurds are not Saddam's people but his sworn enemies, please stop dumping Rush Limbore(sp) on us.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2447 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Very silly comparison and frankly in my considered opinion does not have any merit but lots of consequences to your thinking faculty. Your comparison is indeed demonstrative of someone...... Tufiakwa .
I will answer your silly question just to let you know how nice I am to respond to questions like yours:
In the eyes of an outsider, Igbos are Biafranigerians, their flag, Green white Green, their country of birth and their constitution unfortunately Obasanjo is their President. As long Igbos are Biafranigerians governed by Obasanjo, he remains in the eyes of the international community his people. But within the country, Obasanjo is not seen by a long short an Igbo [chukwu ekwela] or their own tribes man but a Yoruba President. Now how about that for a nice response Ed/nut?
Hail Biafra
[ September 18, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Pychologist, if you know the history of the Kurds both in Iraq and Turkey, you will stop coming here with that talk radio gibberish and do some independent thinking for once.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2447 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Nelson Mandela on George Bush and Dick Cheney,
quote:If you look at these matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.
....
When there were white secretary generals, you didn't find this question of the US and Britain going out of the UN. But now that you've had black secretary generals, such as Boutros Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan, they do not respect the UN. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.--- Guardian
You cannot have racists in the White House without having racism in foreign policy.
Posts: 67 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
I started out with the intention to send a write-up, when I saw this thread I concluded it will be overkill, therefore this abridged version. The title of my write-up could have become “A war with many unknown”. Pardon my digression, and to what I think of Daddy’s unfinished business.
A war with many unknown is what come to mind as one try to analyse the war George Bush (GWB), wants so badly to start. Come to think of it, he might end up levelling with Saddam Hussein’s (SH) two wars.
When I say it is a war of many unknown, it is bcos the more you think of it, the more you end up realising, the consequence has not dawned on him. Probably he has a Shaft or James Bond trick (Isaac Hayes better start composing a new Shaft theme), or he has developed some missiles signed, sealed to be delivered directly to transform SH into a toasted sandwich. Or even more fantastic- he has a military coup in the pipeline, where a group of US marines supported by 100.000 volunteers coupled disgruntled Iraq’s will kidnap SH and take him to a location in the US, where he will be prosecuted for his war crimes.
These are some of imagined scenarios triggered by the theme of this thread. One thing is as sure as Amen in the church. That is there awaits him/us a surprise. This is becos, if and when the US goes to war, it sure will be a different war from Dessert-storm 11 years ago. Granted, Afghanistan was a testing ground for American latest weapon technology, where a war could be won by remote control, it is also demonstrated the cost is a heavy collateral damage.
Other unknown: This time around, the US might have to do it alone without her European allies. Tony Blair is presently speaking with two tongues, one day he supports the US the next day he will support Schröder and Chirac’s middle of the road solution. Without his Arab allies, there will be no base facilities for American manpower and materials.
It will be interesting to know if it was an empty rhetoric, when the Arab League (AB) 2 weeks ago in Cairo unanimously decided to support Iraq, with the statement that “an attack on Iraq is an attack on all Arab states securities and stability. Furthermore, AB’s General Secretary, Amr Mousa – former Egyptian Foreign Minister, declared a war will open the floodgates of hell. It seems the statements direct address is the so-called moderate states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi-Arabia (emphasis is mine).
Without Iraq’s neighbours providing base facilities, the US will have to turn to Turkey. US have an Air Base in Turkey. It is from this base American and British planes have constantly been bombing targets in the north of Iraq since 1991 when the area was declared “no-fly-zone”, immediately after the gulf war.
Turkey is a reluctant ally. Not just bcos Turkey is going to the pools on the 3rd of November and nobody can predict the outcome. More so bcos there is a profound collision of American and Turkish interest. I believe they say your enemy’s enemy is your friend. Hence one could deduce that the problem here is not the person Saddam Hussein, but Iraq future, should his regime be terminated by a coup or military defeat.
As GWB makes the removal of SH his top priority, it is becoming more apparent he does not have a clear cut notion of Iraq after him. This vague notion could be that GWB, and his planners have not grasped all the consequences of a power shift I Baghdad.
It might worth its while, if they got some help from Tony Blair’s UK there only semi-ally. It was Britain that ditched the imperial out of Ottomans imperial after the ruin of the 1st world war. Has GWB considered that Iraq after SH could be one of these scenarios, a federation of autonomous mini-states, comprising for example, a Shiites in the south, a Kurdish in the north – close to the Turkish boarder.
It is an open secret that Saudi-Arabia is afraid that a Shiite mini-state as a neighbour to Iran, will probably come under the influence of Iran. On the other hand, Turkey fears a Kurdish nation that for sure will animate the much bigger Kurdish minority in Turkey to demand a political or cultural autonomy. A thought experts in Europe agree – keeps any government in Ankara awake at night.
As we have seen from the above reasoning, if GWB goes to war, it will be a war with many unknown. Then why is he desperate to carry on? Before we go further, let’s see what the UN resolution says on Nations moral rationale to intervene. It says, if a country commits genocide or ethnic cleansing, all Nations have right and obligation to stop it by all means (my interpretation). The threshold for such type of humanitarian action is very high. Granted there was Halabja massacre in 1988, Britain and America did not react, bcos he was their darling, defending the western interest, securing free flow of oil. Therefore, if Tony Blair suddenly remembers Halabja in the north of Iraq, true it is close genocide, the burning question is if this rational justifies American and British war against Iraq.
I am not a big fan of SH, however, how do you take a stand here for or against a war? Me think French Chirac made an interesting submission, if followed could help resolve the crisis. The main points in Chiracs plan are: no military action without the UN. Three weeks deadline for Baghdad to open her doors for the UN weapon inspectors. The plan will result in a new UN resolution that clearly empowers military action. Schröder and Blair supports Chiracs plan. One could wish Chirac submission be given a chance, and should SH start another cheat and retreat, with the weapon inspectors, then another war can be justified.
In view of the above, a preventive war to overthrow a dubious regime one does not like is not legitimate. It might open the floodgates of hell.
Concluding, I could have said the out going German Justice Minister, Hertha Däubler-Gmelin, was precise in her remarks as to why GWB want a war, that he is using foreign affairs to divert attention from his failure domestically. She said what most people think in this part of the world unfortunately she had to compare him with Hitler. So the bottom-line is escapism.
As I write, one of the highest ranking Iraq’s general living on sufferance in Denmark, said he’d not advice Bush to wage a war against, rather the opposition needs logistics and moral support. The general is on sufferance, as the Danes refused to give him asylum, bcos it is claimed he led the massacre in the north of Iraq.
I must run.
Posts: 191 | From: Denmark | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
When September 11 happened, the whole world mourned with America. We all felt the grief of the tragedy; the loss of innocence; the betrayal. The senseless loss of nearly 3,000 lives, the great damage to the American symbols of power, economic and military: all that was devastating.
What is the rest of the world's perspective? Everyday is Sept. 11 for Indonesians, Israelis, Indians, Nigerian Christians, Philipinos, and countless oppressed nations whose citizens are murdered in the streets by Islamists who are kin to the pertrators of Sept. 11. The citizens of these nations have been bleeding for years, bled by terrorists, funded by Saudi Arabia, armed by China and Russia. Saudi Arabia, Russia and China are major U.S. allies. Has U.S. lifted a little finger to help these nations? No, instead, all they worry about is their own casualties. When America hurts, it understands pain.
All this, and the distance of over a year, lend objectivity. Whatever Americans might feel, Sept. 11 was not the end of civilization as we know it. However painful it might be, it is merely a wake-up call: "Welcome to the rest of the world! This is how the other half lives, vulnereable to terror and fearful of their lives." America bestrides the world like a colossus, but it is not invulnereable. This is a consequence of the much-touted globolization, ironically enough.
The very hubris of being sole superpower is likely to be followed by nemesis. Paul Kennedy wrote about the decline and fall of the great powers. It does seem that there is an organic cycle to power: sooner or later, America too will lose it. Just as Rome did, the Mongols, the Ottomans, and the British.
Iraq is a very pregnant pause as the war on terrorism looms.
[ October 15, 2002, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Mojo Long ]
Posts: 83 | From: Kirksville, Missouri, USA | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Methinks, George Bush is a Dastardly War Monger
For a while now, Baby Bush has been seeking to launch a brutal war against Iraq and the people of Iraq. The purpose of this Bush war is to finish the mess that Bush senior, Baby Bush’s father, started.
We know that North Korea has the nuclear bomb. Why doesn’t baby Bush attack North Korea? Is Baby Bush a dastard, who is only brave when he has a weak opponent?
Now, I ask you, Waypoint1biafra, when will you and Baby Bush start bombing North Korea?
Mojo Long:
Your posts so far are music to my ears.
[ October 22, 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Fumi Onodipe ]
Posts: 65 | From: Good Old USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
No, Bush does not have any plan to nuke North Korea or Gondoliza Rice, the legal warrior and intellectually stimulating in his administration will recommend war againt the rogue nation. There is already a persuassive agreement in place although in violation by North Korea but diplomacy still prevail because of special circumstances. I have no reservation.
COMMON SENSE America will win any war against anybody. But it will be caterstrophic to go to war against one million solidiers with nuke across the boarder with only 35,000 US soldiers stationed along the Boarder. By the way North Korea has agreed to work with US to disarm over food. Thats good news unlike Saddamned.
Iraqi does not have the nuke or in the verge of getting it, best diplomacy is war for preventive measures. Very simply, Nuke Iraqi and negoatiate with North Korea. It may sound like double standard but thats the name of the game. What is good for the goose is not always good for another.
Hail Biafra
[ October 22, 2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1672 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Here they come again. Secretary of State Colin Powell is showing restraint toward Iraq while G.W. Bush is pushing Kofi Anan and the United Nations weapons inspectors to "hurry up."
Today, as U.S. stand poised for war with Iraq, it will be foolish not to examine the lessons learned from the Cuban missile crisis, 40-years ago, and how restraint saved the day. They didn't get the regime change they were seeking, and in fact have yet to see a regime change in Cuba. But neither did they embark on a war fueled by nuclear weapons that would have changed the world as we know it.
From the moment Castro came into power, the U.S. began plotting to get rid of him. John F. Kennedy agreed and was keen to displace Castro, but he strongly favored covert action over direct intervention. In the Spring of 1961, he signed off on a secret CIA plan for an exile force to invade Cuba from its southern shore at Bahia de los Cochinos--the Bay of Pigs.
Today's situation is not entirely analogous. The U.S. has a strong desire to effect regime change in a country that it feels is a serious threat. But there is no third party that can be used to put pressure on Saddam Husseine in the way that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was able to leverage Castro.
Still, President Bush would do well to mediate upon Kennedy's patient strategizing and restraint. It is unlikely that anyone today would argue that America should have gone to war with Cuba in 1962. Perhaps they would have ousted Castro--but at what cost?
Posts: 83 | From: Kirksville, Missouri, USA | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)