Could anyone lend me a hand?

[bumcheekcity]

In response to Mr. Andreas Christodoulou, after the roughly six years in which our weapons inspectors were expelled on returning, was it ever likely that they would have found any WMD, especially after all the time wasting at the UN giving Saddam do much warning? A six-year period is ample time, in a vast country, to conceal WMD in places weapons inspectors would never find them, particularly with the regime in place, watching over their shoulders. Sending in inspectors only indefinitely postpones the inevitable, since is can only suspend the regime’s activities. I would also like to point out that Saddam’s sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is a reason all on it’s own for military action to be taken, regardless of what the politicians say or emphasize.
In your talk of America’s Nuclear Arsenal, I would like to make some facts clear to you. #1: America is our ally. #2: America is a Democracy, Iraq (was) a dictatorship. #3: Democracies don’t start war on each other, so we and every other country in the world is never under threat from the United States. The fact that you even try to compare a dictatorship with a free dictatorship is staggering. And furthermore, it was America who was attacked on 9/11, and jihadi war was started long before. Not since the tensions of the Cold War has America so needed a weapons supply. The same goes for every non-Islamic state.
It amazes me that people criticize America for Afghanistan, and even Iraq now. Did you really expect either of them to become flourishing prosperous states by now? Seriously? Maybe you should be a bit more realistic. In some sets of circumstances, democracy can’t be achieved without considerable loss to our own, which raises the question of how much do we lose for others to gain?
I do not see the relevance of saying that America installed dictators in the past, because it has no bearing on the present situation. There are different people running the US now, a new generation of people living in it, and you just can’t take the actions of their predecessors, and pin it on them.
Regarding Guantanamo Bay, I don’t agree with the loophole that you failed to mention. Not the international law stuff, but the fact that by holding these detainees in Cuba, they can bypass the constitution on the holding of prisoners. The “Patriot Act” raises serious issues about the power of government, although at the same time, I appreciate that some strengthening of Government to combat homegrown terrorism is necessary. But I would like to know precisely where you get your information from, to state so blatantly that there is no evidence against the people held in Guantanamo Bay. I would ask simply why they would go to the bother of holding them if this was true.

[bumcheekcity]

This is a letter to me from a bloke in the local paper, which I write into from time to time. I just want to ask some people on a few things.

1) “Democracies don’t start war on each other.” I would be right in saying that WWI was fought by democracies, but I can’t for the life of me think of any others. The Cold War, maybe, but that wasn’t really a war. There must be others. Can anyone think of any?

2) “…has America so needed a weapons supply. The same goes for every non-Islamic state.” I want to point out the fact that some countries seem to be able to avoid war very well. Sweden, for one. I was thinking of Canada, and hoped a Canadian could tell me the last time they went to war?

3) “There are different people running the US now…” Weren’t some members of the current Bush Administration involved in the Republican Government that installed Saddam in the first place?

Well, those are the main points, and I just thought you might fancy reading a letter. If anyone could lend a hand, I’d appreciate it.

At 1/21/04 12:56 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: 1) “Democracies don’t start war on each other.” I would be right in saying that WWI was fought by democracies, but I can’t for the life of me think of any others. The Cold War, maybe, but that wasn’t really a war. There must be others. Can anyone think of any?

Well that depends on what you consider to be a war
There's the U.S. and Iran
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/iran.php
The U.S. and Chile.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1038615,00.html
The U.S. and Guatemala.
http://www.rightsaction.org/articles/0797.htm
The U.S. and El Salvador.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/elsalvador.php
The U.S. and Panama
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-05.html

2) “…has America so needed a weapons supply. The same goes for every non-Islamic state.” I want to point out the fact that some countries seem to be able to avoid war very well. Sweden, for one. I was thinking of Canada, and hoped a Canadian could tell me the last time they went to war?

Canada mostly acts on peace-keeping missions. The last time we went to war was in WWII.

3) “There are different people running the US now…” Weren’t some members of the current Bush Administration involved in the Republican Government that installed Saddam in the first place?

Donald Rumsfeld. Bush's father took part in supporting Saddam but of course it's just pure coincidence that Bush's son happened to overthrow one of his father's ennemy.

Well, those are the main points, and I just thought you might fancy reading a letter. If anyone could lend a hand, I’d appreciate it.

Glad to help.

P.S. I strongly recommend bookmarking www.zmag.org www.thirdworldtraveler.com and www.undergroundactionalliance.org in your favorites. They're highly valuable sources of information relating to the world's naughty secrets.

[Dagodevas]

At 1/21/04 12:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: In response to Mr. Andreas Christodoulou...

MY LETTER! j/k

swallowing_shit (ugh, I hate having to type that name) has the right idea. I'm sure you'll be able to write a decent reply, you always do.

At 1/21/04 01:45 AM, Dagodevas wrote: swallowing_shit (ugh, I hate having to type that name)

lol, no worries. I'll probably be changing it again in a month or so.

If I may, I'd like to have a go at this individual's reply.

At 1/21/04 12:55 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: In response to Mr. Andreas Christodoulou, after the roughly six years in which our weapons inspectors were expelled on returning, was it ever likely that they would have found any WMD, especially after all the time wasting at the UN giving Saddam do much warning?

The very existence of the threat of Saddam's WMD is questionable.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122903B.shtml

I would also like to point out that Saddam’s sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is a reason all on it’s own for military action to be taken, regardless of what the politicians say or emphasize.

Well the U.S. has been supporting Cuban terrorists for years.http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html

As well as supporting dictatorships in South America and throughout the world.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

And furthermore, it was America who was attacked on 9/11, and jihadi war was started long before.

Does this man fully realize the implications of 9-11?
http://www.zmag.org/terrorwar/nineeleven.htm

Not since the tensions of the Cold War has America so needed a weapons supply. The same goes for every non-Islamic state.

I wasn't aware that the war on terrorism was a war on Islam.

It amazes me that people criticize America for Afghanistan, and even Iraq now. Did you really expect either of them to become flourishing prosperous states by now? Seriously?

Is Afghanistan a flourishing state right now? Are any of the "liberated" states any better than they were off before? (Grenada, El Salvador, Chile, etc.)

I do not see the relevance of saying that America installed dictators in the past, because it has no bearing on the present situation.

I beg to differ, without the U.S. interventions in the Afghanistan/USSR back in the 1980s, Osama Bin Laden would've never launched a strike against the U.S.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/21/04 02:13 AM, swallowing_shit wrote:

Not since the tensions of the Cold War has America so needed a weapons supply. The same goes for every non-Islamic state.

I wasn't aware that the war on terrorism was a war on Islam.

So far, it seems to be. There's definitely a case to be made, regardless:

Have we ratcheted up on militia surveillance, domestic terrorism? Not according to ANYTHING Bush or his administration has said. It's all been about Al-Queda, middle east terrorism.

There's been a lot of 'tough' rhetoric sent at Iran. Surely we'll see some economic sanctions, or other non-military attacks.

Bush and this policy of ethnocentrism seems to be saying:
"American democracy or bust!"

[Slizor]

I'd make to like some points.

after the roughly six years in which our weapons inspectors were expelled on returning

They weren't expelled, they left. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html
And it was 5 years.

was it ever likely that they would have found any WMD, especially after all the time wasting at the UN giving Saddam do much warning? A six-year period is ample time, in a vast country, to conceal WMD in places weapons inspectors would never find them, particularly with the regime in place, watching over their shoulders. Sending in inspectors only indefinitely postpones the inevitable, since is can only suspend the regimeÂ’s activities.

Does anyone else believe in aliens? I bet the Government has some. Oh wait they'll hide them now! Why do people believe things without facts?

I would also like to point out that SaddamÂ’s sponsoring of Palestinian terrorists is a reason all on itÂ’s own for military action to be taken, regardless of what the politicians say or emphasize.

I would like to point out that bush's sponsoring of the Israeli Defence Force is a reason all on its own for military action to be taken, regardless of what the politicians say or emphasize. The conflict has two sides at fault, if we are going to reprimand supports of one side, we must reprimand the supporters of the other.

#3: Democracies donÂ’t start war on each other, so we and every other country in the world is never under threat from the United States.

Just because a democracy has never had a war (an open war, there has been a lot of subversion of democracy....as punk has shown) doesn't mean there won't be.

It amazes me that people criticize America for Afghanistan, and even Iraq now. Did you really expect either of them to become flourishing prosperous states by now? Seriously? Maybe you should be a bit more realistic.

There is a difference between them becoming flourishing prosperous states and having basic order. After WW2 not a single American soldier was killed in the occupation of Germany, there have been 232 in Iraq.

I do not see the relevance of saying that America installed dictators in the past, because it has no bearing on the present situation. There are different people running the US now

Punk will probably have some sources on this. Oliver North, Kissinger, bush Snr, etc.

[JoS]

CAnada's last "war" was KOrea, unless you included Kosovo, and peacekeeping missions.

[JoS]

Opps, I forgot to mention we went to Afganistan and we do have ships in the Persian Gulf

[lapslf]

First of all, I still have serious doubts whether you could call the US a democracy, but it's diffecult to make a hard statement about that so let's skip it. But about what the guy says about the patriotic act ("The “Patriot Act” raises serious issues about the power of government, although at the same time, I appreciate that some strengthening of Government to combat homegrown terrorism is necessary.") is easily overthrown. I mean, they say it's core goal is to protect the freedom and democracy, but if there's one thing the patriotic act is doing it's undermining both the freedom and democracy of US citizens and immigrants. And why holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay without evidence? Well, the authorities just "know" these people are evil and do not want to bother themselves proving so in court.

[bumcheekcity]

Just in case you fancy reading my reply, here it is.

Mr. Sullivan, you say that it is possible that Iraq could have hidden their stores of WMD, as they had been given ample time to do so, due to the UN warning. Is it possible that Iraq didn’t actually have them. It would be a major factor as to why we haven’t found any yet. It seems funny to me that the Americans, who were so sure as to the existence of the weapons, are so unsure of their placement.
You also say that, because Saddam sponsored Palestinian Terrorists, this is reason enough for military action to be taken. That’s really ironic, because in the months after 9/11, the Bush Administration released hundreds of Cubans convicted of terrorist offences from their prisons, and returned them safely to Cuba. A double standard, you might think. Where is my source for this? I found it on The Guardian’s Website. Also, Bush’s sponsoring of the Israeli Defence Force is reason enough for action to be taken against him. The conflict has two sides at fault, if we are going to reprimand supports of one side, we must reprimand the supporters of the other.
Moving down the page, you argue that America should own Nuclear Bombs. Let me tell you that the world (after the Cold War) devised a system of MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. If one Nuclear bomb was ever set off, by and country, for whatever reason, then EVERY single Nuclear Missile owned by every single country in the world would be fired at a prearranged location, which would be a major city (one to New York, to Paris, London, etc.) Bush CAN’T use one of those things without, 30 minutes later, us all living back in the Stone Age again. Why do we have them at all?
I will admit, that I have probably not been realistic in my attack that Iraq and Afghanistan are not flourishing yet. You’re right, we can’t just wave magic wands and expect all our problems to go away. But any of the states America has felt the need to “Liberate” [Read: Interfere With] any better than they were off before? Let’s try naming all of them that now have a properly democratically elected government. Well, I’m stuck. Can you think of any?
Also, there IS relevance in saying that the US installed dictators in the past. Saddam came to power in 1979, and then had 12 years of Republican rule (Reagan and Bush Snr.) who supported him in his Iran/Iraq war, and supplied him with weapons to fight it with. Lots of Senators, members of Congress and high-up members of the Administration were there in those 12 years, and are there with Bush Jr. now. Same country, same people, same views, same problems.
For your information, the Pentagon keeps little to none information about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and they certainly wouldn’t release it into the public domain. Most of the information I have comes from charities, mainly Amnesty International.
On a final note, Government does not have to be strengthened to fight homegrown terrorism. Do you know how many Americans died due to terrorism? About 1000, is the biggest figure I get, for the WHOLE of the 90’s. Sure, that’s about two every week, but it’s nothing compared to anything else. Cars, obesity, smoking, guns, all kill thousands times more than terrorism ever could.

I, for one, will proceed to kiss your arse for such a well-structured letter. Personally I would've just called him a wanker and cancelled my subscription to that paper.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/22/04 05:03 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: I, for one, will proceed to kiss your arse for such a well-structured letter. Personally I would've just called him a wanker and cancelled my subscription to that paper.

I DELIVER the paper. It's one of those free Subday ones, but it's kinda good, considering.

[Empanado]

At 1/22/04 05:03 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: I, for one, will proceed to kiss your arse for such a well-structured letter.

No offence, but wouldn't that result inmediately on the act described in your nickname?
j/k
Well, it is a well-structured letter, in fact. One or two flaws, but nothing to really care about. But i'm not going to kiss anybody's arse. Yuck.

[Slizor]

Can you post his reply? (when it comes)

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/23/04 09:08 AM, Slizor wrote: Can you post his reply? (when it comes)

Yeah, of course. Actually, there are 3 different people who have replied to my 3 letters. Either way, my letter, if it gets in, will be on on Sunday, and the reply will be in on the 3rd of Feb or whatever Sunday's closes to the 3rd that there is.

[Slizor]

I used to write into the local paper (Leicester Mercury!) but I stopped when I realised no-one paid attention to it. I was gonna write to the Guardian.....but I never got round to it. Maybe I'l do that when I finish my exams.

[bombkangaroo]

anyone care to give out the name of this newspaper?

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/23/04 05:31 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: anyone care to give out the name of this newspaper?

The Northants on Sunday. It's a local newspaper, but quite well done.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/23/04 09:08 AM, Slizor wrote: Can you post his reply? (when it comes)

By request, here is his letter:

To Mr Christodoulou.

Yes it is quite probable that no WMD's exist in Iraq. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But all the evidence pointed to the fact that they did exist.

Saddams previous acquiring of WMD, the timing of wespons inspectors being expelled, the regimes refusal to ever co-operate, the fact that Saddam sought to create the existance of WMD to his own people, the fact that many Iraqi exiles STILL testify to their existance etc. etc. Regardless of what the Politicians said or say, the fact that recent inspections found a weapons programme in his early stages indicate we were right to move when we did, or we could have faced serious trouble with a much more powerful Ba'thist Regime.

Isreal is a democracy in a sea of thuggish dictatorships that want to destroy it. [Note from bum: The Palestinians can't vote, can they?]

Palestinian terrorists blow themselves up to diliberately kill as many Isreli civilians as possible, yet every time Isreal responds by targeting Hamas, or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, it is the one criticised. Some would call this self-defence and there are many instances of Arafat and the PLO's sponsoring of Anti-Isreal and anti-Western terrorism.

Only negociating, often forced on Isreal by the USA, has given these thugs encouragement. Contrastingly, the building of the wall and the occupation os Palestinian territory has seen drops in the numbers of suicise-bumbers follow.

Regarding MAD, the concept of appeasement applies outside the Isreli-Palestine concept; removal of Nuclear weapons is only going to encourage those who hate the west, because it is interpreted as a sign of weakness.

Some terrorist-sponsoring states out there also have them (e.g. North Korea), and the West runs considerably highter risk of being hit if the attackers know there is unlikely to be a imilar retaliation.

As to your point about democracies, Japan keeps springing to mind as a successful transition from dictatorship. But 'liberate' is a term used by those too politically correct to admit that the reason they interfere with any other country, is to protect their own countey's interest, or those of our allies. It's not often possible to create flourishing democracies without huge loss to our own, and it is foolishly optomistic to believe otherwise.

I would also like to point out that in Afghanistan, it looks considerably like they're slipping back towards Islamism, but if the USA again interfered, they'd be accused of installing a 'puppet government'.

My point about the pentagon was simply that much of the information about prisoners is kept classified, even from charities like Amnesty. Just bear it in mind, and accept that you cannot know all there is to know about situations like Guantanamo Bay, before blurting out 'there is no evidence against the people held there'.

Finally, to deal with the most absurd pacifist argument I have ever come across, has it occurred to you that people CHOOSE to drive, CHOOSE to eat themselves into obesity, and CHOOSE to smoke, because these are the sort of freedoms that are avaliable in the West? It's called 'self-responsibility'. Islamic terrorism is people deliberately trying to take the lives of 'infiseld'; victims who did not choose to be victims.

It is based on a direct interpretation of the Koran, that demands that all 'unbelievers' should be killed. This is about so much more than statistics; it's a battle of ideologies. How much do you value your freedom from Islamic Facism, Mr Christodoulou?

Editor's Note: Youa re doing Islam a great disservice to suggest it requires its followers to eliminate all non-believers. Some have chose to interpret the writings in that way, however the evidence of history is that Christianity is a far less tolerant religion. In ffact many western politicians have bent over backwards to steer the war on terrorism away from being a clash of ideologies, because, essentially the majority of both Christians and Muslims are both peace-loving people. It is only the extremists from both communities who benefit when we allow our different ways of life to become polrised by fear and hatred.

[bumcheekcity]

And the "Editors Note" on the bottom was by the editor of the paper, not by me, just to clear things up.

[MountainHermit]

Know what would suck for you, if you got fired for writing this letter.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/1/04 10:37 AM, MountainHermit wrote: Know what would suck for you, if you got fired for writing this letter.

From being a paperboy? Maybe not...