quote: Saddamn has proven to be the root in that part of the region by invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, destroyed their oil fields. He has no right whatsover, to invade another nation. He has weapon's of biology and mass destruction and he intends to use them in the future.
Waypoint1,
Unless you are creating that history at present, Saddam never invaded Saudi Arabia, please check your facts again. He did invade Kuwait but if you know the History of that region, you will find out that Kuwait being a country created by the British Empire, is like the so called NigerDelta of Nigeria being carved out of Nigeria and made a country for her natural resources. Kuwait was part of Iraq historically. As for his intensions on the weapons of mass destruction, you must either read the future or have private conversations with Saddamm himself to know what his future plans are, or this is what you heard Sean Hanady say last week.
posted
EDNUT , it is only fair and sound logic to say that once a con, always a con. No body can say exactly what the future looks like but when we put two and two together based on predication, we can forecast what the future would look like. If Saddam has used the biological weapon before on his neighbors, particularly the Kurds, there is no doubt in any age of reasoning that he will not use it again. This time, he intends to go the distance----------> ISREAL
In addition, it is not about who created Kuwait but Saddam's intent. Kuwait is a country, self governed and should be respected. The creation of Kuwait by the British does not justify his madmax beyong thunderdorm. It is demonstrible of how far Saddamn is fascinated with raw power. Every argument in this thread has expunged Saddamn's rogue record and presented him with humane treatment rather than the devil he is.
By the way, who in his right mind would defend a man who created and inflicted a desease on living people, especially children? You gotta be crazy.
Hail Biafra
[ February 16, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Just about everybody in leadership position has that fascination. Why do you think Dubya is going after Saddamm and his "nucular" power and not after Pakistan or Isreal or even South Africa? Granted that Saddamm is no father christmas but he is not the only one out there. OBJ is no better than Saddamm and has used nigerias version of weapons of mass destruction on innocent old men and women that voted him into power. Anyway shaa, incomplete taught process starts here.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2450 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ednut, Please stroll up. Your comparison has no merit. Pakistan, Obasanjo, Isreal, South Africa and company are not viable candidates for terror against humanity. Saddam is every wanton and merciless will against humanity. He is the highest degree of tyranny. He has committed more flagrant acts of tyranny than Molushovik, if not equally on the same level.
All the countries or persons you mentioned above have not used any weapons of mass destruction against it's neighbors. They have not publicly advertised or encouraged the use of humans as sheilds in self defense. They have not publicly jubiliated the sufferings of Americana and 9/11. By the way, South Africa no longer possesses nuclear weapon, It has been dismantled by the UN.
Hail Biafra
[ February 17, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
KOFI ANNAN ....urged Iraq to "Choose compliance over conflict" otherwise, the Security Council "may have to make a grim choice for war".
And Nelson Mandela and some in this forum have accused George W of sabbotaging Kofi Annan because his a "BLACK MAN". Shame on him for playing the race card.
Hail Biafra
[ February 18, 2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
WP1B, You miss the point or you are obsessed with king Bush of an imperial United States of America, the fact is that simple, peace most be given a chance, if the saddam refuse to disarm, he most face the fire of the resolution 1441 of the united nations, the world is united against Mr. Hussian with weapons of mass destruction or you are simply suporting a King Bush of no human regard. Let's get the history straight, Dr Nelson Mandela was not brought out of jail and democracy enthroned in South Africa by the United States of America, no!, that was done by the united African front against aparthied with the suport of men of good will throughout the world in including Iraq and Libya and all men that that reject aparthied as a crime against humanity while Mr Reagan the ex-president of the US and Mrs thatcher the UK Prime minister miantiened that Mandela and ANC are terrorist. We presently live in a century that can can not accept imperialism, America had the best suport of the the people of the world before the forceful and dictative rule of King G.W Bush and then,he most backdown for the peace of the world or else he will get himself destroyed, I for one still hope that in that in America, the era of Clinton's like's will return soon.
___________________ He likened the second coming of Christ to the realisation of the Biafran dream, stating that at a time people least expect, the much sought Biafra would be a reality..Rev. Fr. Cornelius Ezeiloaku Posts: 622 | From: santiago, chile | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:By the way, South Africa no longer possesses nuclear weapon, It has been dismantled by the UN.
Yes, it was dismantled very fast before a Black President was sworn in. That is the white world for you Waypoint. No black country is good enough to have "nucular" warheads.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2450 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: ........it was dismantled just before a black President was sworn in
.Ednut on white South Africa, possession and a Black President stripped of nuclear weapon. Once again an expressed point of reasoning from a third world point view.
Ednut, almost every country that possesses nuclear weapon has very contentious enemies on the boader or from a distance. I challenge you to name any country that has nuclear weapon with no visible, contemptible and threatennig enemy?.
South Africa had nuclear weapon because, they had this oppressive historical extremism of government in that region called apathied, and they were in dare devil to defend their minority view by all means. Now that Apathied has been dismantled under what reasoning should your "Black President" be in possession of nuclear weapon?. I would think his priority rather than the unclassy possession of nuclear weapon should be containing aids and providing jobs and social skills to those disadvantaged South Africans. The White South African cared no less about those natives. They had nuke because of enemies within and outside south Africa. Please note, I meant nuclear weapon not power plant. There is a difference.
Hail Biafra
[ February 19, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the three mad men in Washington may use nuclear weapons in Iraq. So, America and its so-called “friends” are the only countries that should have nuclear weapons and blackmail the rest of the world with it?
quote:CNN- Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out Nuclear Bomb Against Iraq By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday refused to rule out the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the possible war with Iraq, but noted atomic weapons have not been unleashed in hostilities since 1945.
"Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," Rumsfeld said at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He said the United States would not "rule out various options," but said "those weapons ... have not been fired in anger since 1945."
Rumsfeld's comments came during questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, who expressed alarm that the Bush administration may be considering lowering the threshold for possible use of nuclear weapons.
"As you well understand, the nuclear weapon is not just another weapon in an arsenal. And until now we've always kept them in a class of their own for good reason because of the enormous destructive power and our profound commitment to do all we can to see that they are never used again," Kennedy said.
Rumsfeld said, "Does the (Defense) department have an obligation and have they in successive administrations of both political parties had procedures whereby we would conceivably use nuclear weapons? Yes."
Kennedy then asked whether the United States was "seriously considering using any nuclear weapons against Iraq?"
"The only person in the United States who has the power to use weapons of that nature is the president of the United States," the defense secretary responded. "It seems to me that if one looks at our record, we went through the Korean War, we went through the Vietnam War, we've gone through the war on terror and we've not used nuclear weapons. That ought to say something about the threshold with respect to nuclear weapons."
Rumsfeld added, "We have every confidence that in the event force is to be used in Iraq that we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities."
The only use of nuclear weapons in wartime came in August 1945 when the United States used atomic bombs against two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II. The United States is assembling a large military force in the Gulf region for a possible war with Iraq.
President Bush has said the United States will lead a coalition to topple Saddam Hussein if the Iraqi president fails to comply with U.N. resolutions requiring him to give up any weapons of mass destruction.
posted
If anyone has been following Donald Rumsfeld press conferences, you will notice that he speaks without fore thought. He became a "star" after 9/11. He was reported not to be in good times with Pentagon and was isolated. Because of his relationship with Pentagon he was predicted to be the first to bow out of the administration. Here comes 9/11. If you watch his press confernces, he intentionally over shadows the Chairman of Army Chief of staff. I would not take his press conferences serious. He is the only person in Bush Administration who is eloquently and endlessly loquacious and most of the time off the mark.
ON NUCLEAR WEAPON:
I think what he meant was that if Iraq uses nuclear weapon, USA will do the same. President Bush made that clear last year, only on defensive purposes.
Hail Biafra
[ February 21, 2003, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A Biafra/Nigerian born American would be among the first to defend America against Iraq. His name is Emeka. He was one of the fighter pilots who flew the F16 during the Gulf War. And indeed was a sup.
Hail Biafra
[ February 21, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Since Saddam's overthrow is the issue rather than endangering many innocent lives, Mr Bush should just send a real life Rambo to go and sort him out once and for all. I'd advised Mr Blair to send James Bond. These two will ensure there is minimal colateral damage.
___________________ Awo's political idea was based on the assumption that any town beyond Owo was Igbo or Hausa. Awo was not socialised; he was not a good mixer because he did not have the opportunity, which the secondary school offered. ~TOS Benson, Baba Oba of Lagos Posts: 2644 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
The big picture is not about Saddam Hussain, or WMD. Most of the World have been Hoodwinked, it's about Pax Americana as concieved and delivered by a few men in high places. September 9/11 only provided the impetus....Iraq is just the begining. After the sizure of Iraq, and subsequent killing of Saddam, the rest of the Arab world and much of the Southern hemisphere will be warned. The making of a Global empire will be urshered in to existence.If Washington decrees that you'll not trade so it shall be.
The smaller countries have one of two options, (1) Coronate this new modern day Rome, and accept the crumbs or (2) Work tirelessly and acquire your own nuclear weapon ala North Korea.
"It is not looking Good at All"
Posts: 138 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
" The smaller countries have one of two options, (1) Coronate this new modern day Rome, and accept the crumbs or (2) Work tirelessly and acquire your own nuclear weapon ala North Korea "
No.2 is a bad idea. Don't be deceived Korea is only getting away with it because China approves. That's right, Washington knows better than to mess with the modern day Maoist. See how they have kept Taiwan in line, add to that the fact that they now have money and you have a China with a real bad attitude. Korea will fall in Line if China cooperates with Washington, but the Chinese would rather keep their influence over the peninsula so they quietly nudge Kim on. Even with Japans money China is always going to be the big boy on the block in that part of the world.Washington will find it hard to have it's way over there.
Anybody who tries it in Africa, the middle east or Latin American is gonna get burned and real bad too. Brazil and Argentina lost their opportunity to join the elite class years back. On second thought it may have been for the better since their corner of the world has become less belligrent.
[ February 21, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: chiboy ]
Posts: 1532 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The looming war with Iraq is no longer a popular war in the event U.S. and her British ally ignores world's outcry against a possible attack on Iraq. But the problem and an imminent war is now obvious with an overwhelming U.S. troops stationed in the Gulf region.
The fear is, as it becomes clear Dubya and his father's henchmen plan their strategy to attack Iraq negating the ominous consequences in its aftermath, in a world so critical about U.S. domination on the world, Saddam, in my own opinion would not be going down easily, ala the casualties and the effect the war would have on the world's economy.
Now, who gains and who loses? It's like a fight between two elephants leaving the green grass in devastation.
Posts: 479 | From: The Universe | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: Ednut, almost every country that possesses nuclear weapon has very contentious enemies on the boader or from a distance. I challenge you to name any country that has nuclear weapon with no visible, contemptible and threatennig enemy?
Mr. Waypoint1biafra:
Who are the enemies of Spain and Italy that fit your categories of "visible and contemptible?" Indeed, in the post cold-war world, who are the enemies of France and UK that are so "visible and contemptible" as to justify the vast nuclear arsenal that France and the UK possess?
I cannot for the life of me fathom why you think it was proper for the West to tolerate weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Apatheid South Africa and mad men like Pit Botha, who were poised to use those weapons to kill innocent Africans, but not in the hands of Nelson Mandela. Is it not ironic that the West was complicit in arming Apatheid South Africa with nuclear weapons, but took the weapons away when South Africa became a democracy under Mandela? Are the Afrikaans and Dutch/English mentors of the Apatheid regimes, sworn enemies of Black Africans, not "contemptible" in your estimation? Who were the "contentious enemies on the boader or from a distance" for which the Apatheid nuclear weapons were deployed in the first place? Are you saying that those enemies are now friends? If so, why is one side, the Dutch and the English, still armed to the teeth?
One grave danger we face in the world today is that the United Nations, especially the Security Council, is now used as an organ for disarming the enemies of the United States to prepare those enemies for easy military defeat by US forces. That was not what the nations of the world bargained for when they agreed to join the UN.
It has become clear that the US under George W is nothing but a nuclear blackmailing bully that threatens to unleash horror, including nuclear horror, against poorly armed countries, but routinely backs down from fights against nations with a comparable nuclear arsenal.
The lesson in that is simple. If you do not wish to be crushed by war-mongering lunatics like George W, you should arm your own country with the deadliest nuclear arsenal possible. The UN has participated in the destruction of a vast amount of Iraq's war equipment. It will be criminal for the world to now stand by and do nothing or join George Bush as he rolls into Iraq, while pretending that Saddam and his army pose a credible military challenge to the US advance.
___________________ No Nonsense Posts: 79 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
ONABANJO. I don't want you to assess my response as being critical to you but you sounded like a pessimist. Your focused point that any nation should have nuclear weapon because America has it, is a maniac's dream for destrution. Nice logic but too bad your blinded by your over drive qift for fairness.
By the way, I made it clear that there is a difference between Nuclear weapon and Nuclear energy. The former is defensive and militarized, soley for destruction and the later for commercial gains. The countries you mentioned had nuclear weapon during the cold war but has now been converted into nuclear energy--------> commercial. Besides and unlike Saddam, they are not menace to the world. It would be madness to defer the purpose of nuclear weapon get into the hands of a rogue like Saddam. All the countries you had mentioned has not used any weapons of biology on their people or have they?
WAYPOINT 1B SIMPLE THEORY The fear that the nuclear weapon will become a weapon of universal destruction by Saddamn rather than a tool for planetary health and prosperity is a realistic fear..indispensable. If saddamn is allowed in control of nuclear weapon, there is the likelihood that Aikaida/terrorists gets it, the possible probability that they will use it on the already established intent to destroy the west, particularly America, and Isreal. Oh God, what burden is of Africa who is curently plaqued with aids?. Nuclear weapon in the hands of Saddam or any uncivilzed nation is an exclamation point--------> sucidal.
This "Great ball of fire" [Nuclear weapon]is no longer what it was meant to be. It was developed by German Americans in response to Hilter's taste for destruction of the world only for defensive means and here comes Saddam. It is only a pessimist would not see the similarities. Copy that. Hail Biafra
[ February 25, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE WITH FRANCE TAKES A TURN
Beginning Monday 3-11-03 the following changes has been noted at the Capitol Hill
FRENCH FRIES: FREEDOM FRIES FRENCH BREAD: FREEDOM BREAD FRENCH TOAST: FREEDOM TOAST FRENCH KISS: FREEDOM KISS FRENCH ROLLS: FREEDOM ROLLS
Anything French in America is substituted with freedom because of France's lackadaisical attitude torwards America with reference to veto power they possess.
Hail Biafra
[ March 12, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1684 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This is very childish. I beleive this was done by some congress folks at their lunch cafeteria. Well, I guess they've got nothing better to do.
Posts: 136 | From: Massachusssets | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Until few Nigerians on this site criticize the federal government of Nigeria under Gowon for attacking the State of Biafra, the theme of the oil in their argument is laughable. It must be recalled that the attack on new state of Biafra, which culminated into civil war, was simply instigated by the crude oil that was struck in eastern region of Nigeria. If these morons who fought on the Nigerian side failed to correlate the oil wells in eastern Nigerian and the civil war, their sympathetic arguments toward Iraq will continue to beg for credibility. Shame to those Nigerians who marched to the battlefield against Biafra and now espousing the hypocritical and sentimental support to Iraq based on her crude oil.
With those words, Bush wiped out any doubt that he is using the US armed forces to pursue a family dispute between the Bushes of Maine/Texas and the Hussein's of Tekrit/Baghdad. No soldier, Airman, or Marine should be proud to have taken part in this shameless family feud.
posted
Tunde: You missed something, the OIL, that is what this war is all about, OILwarBUSHjr is the President of The United States of America.
___________________ He likened the second coming of Christ to the realisation of the Biafran dream, stating that at a time people least expect, the much sought Biafra would be a reality..Rev. Fr. Cornelius Ezeiloaku Posts: 622 | From: santiago, chile | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
You are right. Oil is right up there as one of the reasons for this war. Bush did not forget to tell Iraqis "Do not destroy oil wells... " It is a sign of his blind arrogance that he should dare to tell an invaded people how they should fight the enemy.
___________________ No Nonsense Posts: 79 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
