(no subject)

[sockz () email com (sockz loves you)]

----- Original Message -----
From: silvio () big net au
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 01:49:55 -0700
To: sockz loves you <sockz () email com>
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] (no subject)


> umm.. hi sockz!

um hi!!!

> just some naive questions, and this is not my profession, so gross
> inaccuracies may be present!

elite
 
> wasn't the 1998 (?) bombings in iraq a "result of" rejecting un weapons
> inspections?

not really.  that may have been an excuse at one stage or another.  the truth
is that for the most part the coalition's motivation for the december 1998
attack was 'cloudy'.  but one thing is for sure and thats that those weapons
inspectors were NEVER "thrown out" of iraq.  they were pulled out by clinton,
prior to desert fox, because he had already planned to bomb iraq again.

technically the US has never stopped bombing iraq either... i was informed a
while back that the coalition bombs iraq at least once every 3 days, i'm not
sure how much this has changed recently though.  this is why so many ppl are
dead over there (1.5 million... thats like 1/10 australians).  i'm not sure if
that figure includes the deaths from cancer as a result of the estimated
950,000 DU missiles and shells dropped on the nation.  or the 300 tons of
depleted uranium dust which has attacked the immune systems of ppl in the area,
and increased the prevalence of some nasty diseases... then there's the death
caused by sanctions against basic sanitary products like household cleaners,
and the shortage of anti-biotics (because there was due speculation that some
anti-biotics labs were being doubled as labs for making biological weapons)...
sanctions that have seriously degraded the quality of life for the iraqi
people, and have done nothing to saddam himself.

> didn't israel refuse at some point for the un to go to jenin (?) this year?

not sure.  i think in general israel was unwilling to co-operate with the UN
investigation because it didn't like the team of ppl the UN had put together.
something about anti-terrorism or something.  memory: hazy.
 
> does arafat still have half a building to single handedly control those
> suicide bombers?  i think the other half was blown up at some point.

i'm not familiar with this claim at all.  what makes you ask?

> Australia btw a few years ago asked the .us to provide military support
> in east timor..  i belive the .us responsed at the time, (paraphrase),
> "we are not the police of the world.  local regions must take care of their
> own affairs" (if someone can get the exact quote of this?).

the US was just referring back to the Guam Doctrine.  basically the doctrine
said that the united states would no longer rush to the aid of its allies,
unless it directly promotes the interests of america.  kinda conflicts with the
whole ANZUS treaty... but you get that.  i think clinton puts it best when he
says "I don't believe America or any of the other countries were sufficiently
sensitive in the beginning or for a long time".  i dont want to get too nasty
here, so i wont go into the 1975 invasion of east timor, and which nations were
backing it, and why.  i tried to find the exact text of clinton's speech, but i
couldn't.  i might have a hard copy somewhere, but to be honest, it would take
more effort to find than it would be worth.
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup