Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on October 31, 2001, 08:24:00 AM
-
Honorable President
William J. Clinton
Harlem
New York, New York
Dear President Clinton:
On behalf of the Republic of Iraq, its Baath party and the peoples of our Arab nation, I extend my sincere thanks to you.
We are grateful for what you did for us during the past eight years.
After the imperialistic invasion into the Arab nation and the House of Our People by your predecessor, George H.W. Bush, I was given for dead. My days on the earth were numbered. The Iraqi Republic was said to be destroyed.
But after your success in 1992, and again in 1996, you have helped to renew this great nation of which I remain the great leader.
I want you to know that I understood you had to, as you say, "look tough," with occasional bombings, the "embargo," and so forth.
But, Allah be praised, you spared me after you discovered my attempt in 1993 to assassinate George Bush during his trip to Kuwait.
Again, it was you who intervened to make sure your evil CIA and FBI did not fully investigate our first attempt on the World Trade Center in February of 1993 – on the anniversary day your predecessor began his "ground war" against the people of the Arab nation.
When our intermediary friends from the great land to the far north came to me and said it would be helpful to you if I rattled the cage, if I acted the role of the madman, and if you could strike back at me with pinsalamanders – so that you could appear victorious among your foolish people – I did not really believe your sincerity.
I did not believe you would be a friend and faithful. I was wrong. But I did as requested, and time and again, at critical moments in your administration, I made threatening moves or actions. And time and again, you struck back. Always you looked good, strong, tough. We laughed in Baghad as your silly Pentagon people hit our $10,000 radar stations with $500,000 cruise missiles.
You were unlike any American I have ever known. You were honorable. You lived up to your promises made through our great friends in the north.
I can report to you today that the Iraqi Republic, our Republican Guard and the great army of the Arab nation are as strong as they were before the imperialistic Gulf War of Mr. Bush.
We are strong and, thanks to you, Mr. Clinton, your country is weak – much, much weaker than it was before the imperialistic war of Mr. Bush. Today, his son cannot make me a target of his father’s revenge because the Pentagon of his father does not exist. This all, thanks to you, great leader.
We have learned to fight fire with greater fire.
When your U.N. and State Department demanded us to end our weapons programs, you advised us, through our friends from the north, to hold firm. We did so.
As we threw your inspectors out of our country and rebuilt our programs to make Iraq a nuclear power as great as America and Israel, you allowed the embargo to be lifted.
Our oil, the gift of Allah, was freed because of you, and billions of dollars flowed into my accounts. You made this possible. It was your decision alone. We shall not forget your benevolence.
Many here in Baghdad, in the Baath party, could not believe that if we threw your inspectors out, we would actually be rewarded. But I told them to trust our friends from the north, that you were a man of honor.
When September 11 occurred, our great people knew that once again the House of Islam, the Baath party and the Arab nation have risen once again. It was through the mercy of Allah, his benevolence, and you, great leader, that we accomplished so much in so short a time.
Your brother in peace,
Saddam Hussein
President of the Republic of Iraq
_____________________________ _____
Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2001
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/30/224206.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/30/224206.shtml)
-
<scratches his head> What? :confused: :confused:
:D ;)
-
Maybe that's why Americans like to bomb everyone "to stone age"? They think people down there are happy being killed?
Eagler, in fact - many nations must thank Saddam for his very existance. In case the Iraqi regime fails - the whole Middle East will be in flames in a matter of hours. Europe will be shaken by Kurd refugees with their obvious attempt to support Kurdistan that will include large parts of Iraq, Turkey and some other countries. Things will probably develop according to Yugoslavian scenario, but involving more countries, some of them NATO members.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Maybe that's why Americans like to bomb everyone "to stone age"? They think people down there are happy being killed?
Eagler, in fact - many nations must thank Saddam for his very existance. In case the Iraqi regime fails - the whole Middle East will be in flames in a matter of hours. Europe will be shaken by Kurd refugees with their obvious attempt to support Kurdistan that will include large parts of Iraq, Turkey and some other countries. Things will probably develop according to Yugoslavian scenario, but involving more countries, some of them NATO members.
Now that's an interesting opinion, completely rediculus, but interesting none the less. Boroda, when we finaly get rid of ole Sadam 1/3 of Iraqies will dance in the street, another 1/3 will be mad at us for not doing it 10 years ago and the other 1/3 will be dead so it wont matter what they think.
-
Udie, what you said is true. At school there was a guy in my class who's father was an Iraqi communist. They simply hated Saddam. In mid-70s he slaughtered communists. But I assure you - many people in Iraq indeed support Saddam.
I mean that Saddam's regime guarantees that Kurds will not have their own state. If such a state will appear - it will be a great disaster in the Middle East. I don't have an opinion about this problem, but it exists, and has to be treated as an important issue.
-
is this the enquirer or something eagler? come on - this nonsense is just embarrassing.
-
So Boroda, you said you have no opinion on the Kurd matter, right?
Then just who are you quoting with the statement: "If such a state will appear - it will be a great disaster in the Middle East." ?
-
What?? It's kewl to create a state for Jews, restore the Palestenian one; or at least a sembalance of it, but not let the Kurds have theirs??
Sheesh.
At least 1/3 of Iraq should be partitioned and given to the Kurds. They've earned it.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
is this the enquirer or something eagler? come on - this nonsense is just embarrassing.
:)
Enquiring minds want to know ...
Is a bit tard but holds a bit of truth too.
-
Originally posted by Sunchaser:
So Boroda, you said you have no opinion on the Kurd matter, right?
Then just who are you quoting with the statement: "If such a state will appear - it will be a great disaster in the Middle East." ?
Turkey will never let it happend. They are and have been bombing them into a stone age for over 10 years now.
As long as turkey is NATO, we're in stalemate...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
What?? It's kewl to create a state for Jews, restore the Palestenian one; or at least a sembalance of it, but not let the Kurds have theirs??
Sheesh.
At least 1/3 of Iraq should be partitioned and given to the Kurds. They've earned it.
toejam we should let them move out to west Texas after what we did to them at the end of the gulf war. We stuck those poor people out and let sadam slaughter them :( Even though I was only 21 at the time I could see plain as day what we (the west not just US) did to them.
-
I have to agree with Boroda.
Saddam's Irak is a secular state that is a counterbalance to fundamental Iran - which hates us. That is how we always viewed it and why we did not dare eliminate Hussein.
Yes, 2/3s of the people would rejoice if Saddam got killed, but they would be islam fundamentalists who hate us and who would join with Iran in a blink of an eye.
The other 1/3 rejoicing would be Kurds who would attempt creating their state which would be a major blow to our only true muslim ally - Turkey and many some other countries in the region.
Irak was always our friend. We supported them in Iran-Irak war. (Actually at that time I personally lived in USSR and Iran was our friend :))
He did kill communists which we approved.
US did a very stupid thing getting into obligation to defend Kuwaiti's ownership of oil from Iraq (or Saudi's for that matter). Kuwait is not a democracy. It has a very small population that is paid welfare (93% holding government jobs) by the sheikhs who own the oil. The regimes in those countries are not as opressive as in Afghanistan but they are quite oppresive and even less democratic then Irak. Hussein is at least called president and they may have some kind of election/representation and women are not nearly as opressed there if at all.
Iraq claimed that Kuwait was actually a breakaway province grabbed by bandits who call themselves sheiks (aren't they?) and that oil revenue would be better used to support iraki people rather then sheiks's harems and luxuries. While Irak's occupation was called "civil war" by them, it was hardly even that - more like reposession.
It is not the most founded or fair claim - outright rediculous probably - but historically we let our many unsavory friends get away with much more - including selling drugs to us.
There was no danger to us oil interests because Irak would have sold us the same oil for the same price. Why do we care if it is owned by a sheikh or property of Iraki government?
If ignoring the occupation was not an option, US should have used diplomacy to persuade Iraq that it would interfere militarily.
Unfortunately the historical precedent was not in our favor because in most conflicts after 1953 US came back with it's tail between it's legs. Our friends - Israel, central american governments, China etc. are free to ignore US requests and warnings and we do not get mad at them, so Iraq has the false sense of security when it discarded our demands and threats.
Then we hit them like a ton of bricks which was a huge surprise to them. They were obviously not prepared for our attack and hardly fought back.
To most muslims it does look like interference into their (muslim) local affairs.
We also provoked Kurds to uprising during the war but then abandoned them to slaughter because we could not support them. First because we do not give a sh#t about them and most of them are religious fanatics anyway with no particular love for us. Second, because we did not want to destabilise Turkey, Iran and former Soviet Union states.
Seriously, if we cared about kurds, why would we not have invited them here? We have plenty of land available and could use some more people who would appreciate our way of life.
So now Irak knows that we are seruous about defending Kuwait and not likely to attack it again. If it does, we would blast it again. So why do we stay there and intefere with Irak's life? It does look like we do that just to show our strength to the arab world.
And do not give me bulshit about Saddam being dictator and opressor deserving to be removed and us doing that to promote democracy, etc.
Our friends Kuwaitis and Saudis, Chinese and Russians, central americans and africans are all dictators and opressors and we are not bombing them or enforcing no-fly zones.
To all the world we do look like a bully who picked up an easy target.
Saddam is walking a tight rope. The muslim fundamentalists are bigger danger to him then they are to us. Only perceived enimity of US towards him allows him to appear in the lead of opposition to US and makes it akward for Iran-backed fundamentalists to oppose him. So we are strengthening his rule with constant harassment.
He has no real reason to harm US and no need to - there are plenty of people to do that, most of them are his enemies. His is more then happy to let us slaughter each other while he is staying neutral.
Even if he had a reason to hurt us, he would not risk acting against us because if he really pisses us off he can be traced and can be removed from power/killed and Iraki's infrastructure hurt - unlike Taliban/OBL's. Hussein has no desire to hide in a cave/mosque like Taliban.
US should have been consistent in dealings with other countrties. Either we do not deal with dictators or we deal with them and not interfere into their business and internal struggle.
All those dictator guys may not be very nice characters, but they could have been the most valuable allies in our struggle against terrorism. Unlike stupid americans whi created Taliban, they know very well what kind of double-edged thing it could be. And they are very efficient. There was no terrorism/drug trade in Russia and China in their more authoritarian days.
miko
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
!!!! ????
Yer kiddin; right?
-
Sunchaser: So Boroda, you said you have no opinion on the Kurd matter, right?
Then just who are you quoting with the statement: "If such a state will appear - it will be a great disaster in the Middle East." ?
Boroda did not mean that it will be a psrsonal disaster for him if Kurd's state is created. He just stated an obvious prediction that it would cause a major war there. It is pretty common to refer to wars as disasters, so Boroda got confused with his wording. You have to remember that Boroda is not a native english speaker and is drunk most of the time :)
Originally posted by Hangtime:
At least 1/3 of Iraq should be partitioned and given to the Kurds. They've earned it.
Only part of the kurds live in Irak. A lot of them live in Turkey which has a lot of problems with kurd's terrorism - not to confuse with Iraki kurds "freedom fighters". A lot of them live in Iran and other countries.
They do not want just a piece of Irak. They want to organise a pretty large state carved out of those and neighbouring states before they can start killing each other (like afghans) and attacking even more states around. They would probably join jihad against US like the grateful afghanis are doing now.
miko
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
good info Miko
too bad BushSr wasn't able to finish what he started, not eliminating Saddam per say but stabilizing the region with our allies, with the elections handing the ball to slick who proceeded fumble & punt for the next 8 years middle eastern respect for the US.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
...to slick who proceeded fumble & punt for the next 8 years...
Do not forget "cut CIA operations, FBI buget, let NSA go to ruin and reduce US ground troops by 80 percent".
miko
-
Bush Sr started the whole deal, credit where credit is due.
-
Careful Santa... can't annoy the republicans with the facts; they may get testy; and call yah a Nazi.
;)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Bush Sr started the whole deal, credit where credit is due.
That is true. He stupidly took our obligations seriously. Probably entered into them too, unless some flunky did it while Reagan was sleeping.
Not sure though if he would have continued to stay there and piss them off further if he got re-elected. After all he would not have had to prove that he was a tough guy or distract public from his blow-jobs.
Good thing Clinton was elected after Gulf war and not right after US defeated Russia in cold war. Instead of becoming friends with them - like we could have been with Irak (after all the same communist elite stayed in power in Russia) - he probably would have continued to piss them off with embargoes and no fly zones...
Then Yeltsin would have probably dropped a few hundred megatonns on the WTC (they have lousy guidance, so have to hit big), not two airliners.
miko
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
!!!!!
I'm laffin. Really.
:)
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
too bad BushSr wasn't able to finish what he started, not eliminating Saddam per say but stabilizing the region with our allies...
Seriously, we should have had no allies in that sesspit of a region - including Israel. And no commercial interests to make us need allies.
Any israelis (3-2 mil) not willing to live on that eternal powder keg (and the willing palestinians too) should have been offered a choice to immigrate/evacuate to US. Would have cost us less money in the short run and paid back in taxes in a few years.
Those willing to live/die there for religious reasons are not our concern.
Our energy could have come from domestic/american oil and other sources like nuclear.
Our amateur politicians are no match to those generations-bred eastern monarchs who have decades to plan their moves and persistence/attention span to follow them through. They implicate us into centuries-old feuds to serve their needs and pay their bills and then leave us holding the bag or turn on us.
At least as soon as Soviet Union crumbled, US should have broken up with every single monarchic/fundamentalist SOB.
miko
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper? I don't recall any outcry myself, and believe me there would have been if anyone (other than a few paper and non-fiction reading nerds) had taken this seriously at the time. It's Monday morning now, but most of the "quarterbacks" don't seem to have been paying much attention when the game was on.
Not the Republicans, who didn't make it a campaign issue (what with Monica and all)-- wasn't on their radar. Too many deployemnts overseas on peacekeeping missions, yeah that was an issue but not our failures to fight terrorism or put Saddam in his place.
Not Bush jr., who was in a hurry to bring back Star Wars and other big ticket programs and not the lighter, efficient "deployable" military the actual military planners have wanted for a decade. There was no emphisis for more intelligence assests from the Republicans that I can recall -- a recon sat. comes with a contribution from Hughes and other contractors. James Bond is an expense with no investment return in the real world of Washington. Like the Democrats, the Republicans are potatos to political contributions. It should also be pointed out that Bush jr. was generally disengaged from the Middle East turmoil until it gave him a reason (unfortunately) to define his administration.
I imagine, if Clinton had responded more agressively (which, he couldn't for many boring, complicated real-world reasons before Sept 11 (no support for offensive land bases, like Saudi Arabia for a new war on Iraq means not much you can do but lob a few bombs and missiles)all the stock owning conservatives would have sh@t when their stock bubble burst a few years ahead of schedule in the face of war spending and general uncertainity. Then, of course, it wouldn't have been "Clinton the Bold" but Clinton the insane for trashing the economy through unwise foreign policy.
Hey, if it makes you feel good to blame Clinton go ahead. It's simple, and no one has to make their puzzlers hurt trying to understand geopolitics. Fighting terrorism, puting Saddam in his place -- all good ideas both in the past and present.
Unfortunately, there is a real world. I'm not going to blindly Bash Bush Sr. for failing to go all the way in the Gulf War (we could not ignore the demands of the coalition, which made the Gulf War possible in the first place) and I'm not going to bash Clinton (beyond the Somalia FU) for responding to Bin-Laden and Saddam in the only way we could realistically respond in the region before Sept. 11. I'm not even going to bash Bush Jr. if the end result of our war on terrorism is less than succssful, because short of full scale mobilization, a war economy for many years, and a military comprable to 1945 it's not that easy to get satisfaction and justice in the region.
Charon
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11?
Good point. Unfortunately most people and our media keep calling the WTC casualties "innocent civilian victims" and berate OBL for declaring every american taxpayer a valid target.
This is just another way for the mostly overweight comfortable and ignorant US citizens to pretend they do not have responcibility for stupid things that government does - allegedely with good intentions and on our behalf.
This attitude is sure cause us more casualties in the future as the well-meaning presidents elected for their good looks stumble into more pitfalls of international politics.
miko
-
look at it this way:
if you, the dad, has a baby son and raise that son into a spoil rotten brat by the age of eight then the mother divorces you, choses another and gets remarried, is not the new father and their friends going to blame dad #1 for the way the child turned out? Maybe some of the odd behaviors of the son are not obvious to all but as a reaction to certain circumstances are brought to light..
Yes, you are right, for the most part ppl were to busy counting their $$$'s to care about anything other than how many points their 401k went up last week.
I do blame the last administration for many of the screwed up things in the country today. It's not easier, it is accurate.
-
Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper?
<raises hand>
-
Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper? I don't recall any outcry myself, and believe me there would have been if anyone (other than a few paper and non-fiction reading nerds) had taken this seriously at the time.
Charon
me me me me me
I never protested in the streets as I was too busy working trying to take care of myself b4 the government tried to "take care of me" ;) But I did write several congressmen, not only my own. I was a regular caller on that ole evil right wing talk radio.
As much as I'd like to pin this whole mess on Clinton, I can't honestly do that. The fact is, as far as I see it, that we (the USA) are ALL to blame for it. We watched our government more like a soap opera rather than watching it with vigilance. The Rep's in congress were too busy trying to slam slick willy while the Demo's were too busy succesfully trying to "school lunch" the Rep's (i mean good God who actually believes that anybody would want to starve their constituant's children) Meanwhile the American people let their government act like freaking school kids. There's no telling what was done behind our backs in the last 10 years by both parties.
What are you gonna do? They seem to be on the same page now though, so I'm willing to give both parties one more chance. It's kind of nice to see them go out of their way NOT to argue :)
-
This great nation had all the protection against terrorisim it was willing to pay for prior to Sept 11th. Not a penny more; not one life less.
We had the same 12 battle fleets, the same b1b's the same b52's. The same Army, the same Marines, and the same screwed up forigen policy it's had for the last 8 presidents.
The White House has a new parrot every 4 to eight years. He's an interloper.. a Joe who makes speaches; pontifcates, fornicates, defacates and leaves. Small beans.
The guys that gave us this load of horseshit to deal with are the lifelong diplomats, the state department functionaries and policy hacks that artfully dodge the bullets of responsibility.. "wasn't me; man".
Lets toss 'em.
-
It is not a Clintons fault that Saddam is still in power.
It is because of impotence of Bush sr. who ultimately he gave the orders to stop advance during the war because he did not have the guts to go further. He was sure that Saddam's regime would collapse but of course, he was wrong.
Don't blame Clinton.
-
There was no UN mandate to go any further into Iraq. Without a UN mandate, the US would have lost coalition support - maybe even Saudi Arabia in a bizarre way.
Powell said as much in interviews after the war.
Instead, there was an attempt to foster revolt in the ranks of Saddam's armies and encourage the Kurds to rebel. The result was lots of dead Kurds and localised, Stalinist purges within the ranks of the Iraqi army.
The whole Western policy towards Iraq has been a disaster, and it started way before Clinton or Bush, Snr.
-
Originally posted by Jochen:
It is because of impotence of Bush sr. who ultimately he gave the orders to stop advance during the war because he did not have the guts to go further..
didn't have the guts? LOL
what, the guts to shoot the Iraq soldiers in the back as they ran away???
no seems he had the brains not to..as shown Saddam the crackpot is the lesser of two evils when compared to the religious sand snorting muslim extremists crackpots who'd probably filled his void.
"Don't blame Clinton"
I do, as he didn't have a clue about anything above his belt buckle. I blame the last in charge. He was "in charge" for the last 8 years, riding the economic wave created by his predecessors while slowly allowing the nation to implode both domestically and internationally.
And look where his "leadership" & "group hug policies" have gotten us .....
[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
Originally posted by Jochen:
It is not a Clintons fault that Saddam is still in power.
It is because of impotence of Bush sr. who ultimately he gave the orders to stop advance during the war because he did not have the guts to go further. He was sure that Saddam's regime would collapse but of course, he was wrong.
I guess it is too mentally taxing for you to read the posts in the thread before saying some ignorant thing. At least there is no indication in you message that you read the points and not agreeing with them for some reason.
So let me review in simple words the major points discussed here so you can at least argue them before saying another stupid thing.
1. US have no reason to wish collapse of Saddam's regime.
2. Saddam's regime is crucial to the stability of the region, which is in turn important to our interests and crucial to our allies.
Bush Sr was smart enough to realise that and brave enough to stop the seemingly victorious operation against population wishes. He in fact prevented another Afghanistan for us.
We did win completely in Afghanistan and overthrew the previous regime and replaced it with one of our creation. Are you happy with it?
miko
[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
Miko, one correction: USSR helped Iraq in Iran-Iraq war. Most of their aviation and armoured equipment was Soviet.
Shit, they still owe around 9 billion dollars to us! That's one of the reasons that Russia is against UN sanctions - Iraq simply can't pay it's debts because of them.
USSR had the whole Turkestan military district against Iran, that was the most probable enemy in the south.
-
Hangtime wrote:
The White House has a new parrot every 4 to eight years. He's an interloper.. a Joe who makes speaches; pontifcates, fornicates, defacates and leaves. Small beans.
Man, that's the most accurate, concise and to the point analysis of the role of a president I've seen in a loooong time.
Hangtime for President! He defacates better than most! And, judging by the status of the sheep, he's quite a fornicator too!
-
Hangtime wrote:
The White House has a new parrot every 4 to eight years.
Should read:
Hangtime wrote:
The White House has a new bird every 4 to eight years.
Sometimes the bird is an Eagle other times an Ostrich ...
Easier for an Ostrich to follow an Eagle into office than the other way around...