AssemblyBoard
May 01, 2024, 10:36:05 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15
  Print  
Author Topic: IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?  (Read 127265 times)
editor
Guest
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2003, 01:28:33 am »

Thanks for the history lesson Tom.

Although I knew that there was a large seperation of time between the societies,  I was under the impression that the Aztecs were heavily influenced by the Mayan's,  which you seem to indicate.

I can't fathom why a culture that practices infanticide, and human sacrifice would fail to flourish.  They had such colorful costumes and rich mythological heritage.  

It just seems that George Bush is such an idiot.   Like Cortez.

We should have left the Aztecs alone, and Hussein.   Basically, everything Western is bad, because of the Christian influence.

Keep in mind that they Sacrificed only a small portion of their population.  Well over 85% of the people were NOT sacrificed.  People blow the whole human sacrifice thing way out of proportion.  The basic message of the Aztec faith was one of hope and love, coupled with respect for the earth.

The sacrifice thing only played a part in some, not all, of the temple rituals.  Again, it was only several thousand people a year, just a fraction of the population.  

Enough rambling.  Sorry for the Mchistory lesson.

Brent
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2003, 05:36:00 pm »

Excellent piece on www.townhall.com that relates to this topic.

-Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------
'Just in time' WMD
Charles Krauthammer

October 10, 2003


WASHINGTON -- Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.

Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This, after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear. Indeed, Iraq was sitting on the IAEA Board of Governors.

Ekeus theorizes that Saddam decided years ago that keeping mustard gas and other poisons in barrels was unstable and corrosive, and also hard to conceal. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could ``break out'' and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese ``just in time'' manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Saddam's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

The interim report of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay seems to support the Ekeus hypothesis. He found infrastructure, but as yet no finished product.

As yet, mind you. ``We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone,'' Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. How do we know? Because Saddam's practice was to store his chemical weapons unmarked amid his conventional munitions, and we have just begun to understand the staggering scale of Saddam's stocks of conventional munitions. Saddam left behind 130 known ammunition caches, many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan. Imagine looking through ``600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance'' -- rows and rows stretched over an area the size of even one Manhattan -- looking for a few barrels of unmarked chemical weapons.

And there are 130 of these depots. Kay's team has up to now inspected only 10. The question of whether Saddam actually retained finished product is still open.

But the question of whether Saddam was still in the WMD business is no longer open. ``We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities,'' Kay testified, ``and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002'' -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix.

Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum; and my favorite, ``new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin'' -- all ``not declared to the U.N.''

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is an extremely rare disease, and you can be sure that Saddam was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to pre-empt his development of WMDs was justified.

The fact that Saddam may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through)

does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods are wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.

Saddam was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

Moreover, for those who care about the U.N. (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Saddam to make full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of ``dozens of WMD-related program activities,'' concealed from U.N. inspectors, constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and open-and-shut vindication of the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam by force. Q.E.D.


©2003 Washington Post Writers Group

Logged
enchilada
Guest
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2003, 01:34:10 am »

Looks like Iraq's a good idea; so was facilitating the dismantling of Geftaky's cult, and getting rid of the Aztecs.  Interesting how the three, left alone, whould share some common things:  making people miserable, and increasing the wealth and feeding the egos of their evil leaders.
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2003, 03:36:58 am »

Well, they have caught Saddam. Many of the Arab reporters were thankful for this. Interesting.

Marcia

Warning, I am using the capture of Sadaam to make a point about the Assembly------

Did you see the pictures of Sadaam?  He looked so lonely and defeated.  Surely he has suffered enough.  It's been almost six months since he's been on the run, his sons are dead.....surely people should just get over it!   Why can't they move on?  All the bitterness the Iraqi people have towards Sadaam is going to destroy them!

Sadaam was a monster, sure, but so many people have been hurt during the war to take him out of power!  The Americans are worse than Sadaam!  If we are going to hold a broken, powerless, old man like Sadaam accountable, how much more should we hold George Bush and the American military---who just follow Bush---acountable for what they have done!

The American military killed innocent people!  People have suffered at their hand.   They aren't healing, they just keep opening the old wounds and stirring up bitterness.

I think we should forgive Sadaam, and just keep him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.  Then, we should withdraw from Iraq and let the country heal!  Now that Sadaam is gone, his former servants are no longer a threat.  All they ever wanted to do was serve the Iraqi people, and now they are free to do so.  They weren't that influenced by Sadaam, in fact some of them only had face-time with him once or twice a year!

I think we should do away with this scheme of Bush's, and not force democracy on the Iraqi people.  Let's move on and heal.

Brent  Wink
Logged
Arthur
Guest
« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2003, 06:20:18 am »

He was found cowering in a hole in the ground.  Isn't that fitting.  
God is not mocked.  No one gets away with anything.

Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2003, 09:16:06 am »

Brent and Arthur you are so correct, assuming of course that the sarcasm was intended Brent. Smiley
It was heartbreaking to see Saddam in his present condition, considering what a proud man he was. He left the scene declaring that he was going to defeat the Americans and their allies, and then he was found cowering in a hole in the ground, willingly cooperating with his captors. And the Iraqi people were celebrating in the streets. Yet pity and sorrow for Saddam does not change the fact that he was a tyrant leader and had faithful servants who promoted his agenda, and therefore the best thing for him (and his servants) is his humble present condition which could possibly bring about true repentance.

Marcia
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2003, 10:30:03 am »

Do you think that it is a good idea for some of the former Baathists (Sadaams political party), who weren't that influenced by Sadaam, to have positions of authority in the new Iraqi government?

I don't mean like his family members, or really close associates, but the mayors, police chiefs, ambassadors, security commisioners, agricultural secretaries, information ministers, judges, etc.  Wouldn't it be OK if these people served in Democratic Iraq?  Should they be banned from serving ever again, just because they were part of Sadaam's regime?

Also, what are we going to do about the continued bitterness and lack of forgiveness regarding the Kurds and Shiites?  

Not everything Sadaam did was bad.  I think people just need to take the good things from his regime and move on....

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Brent

(The next step is to plant WMD in Iraq, you know, bury 'em somewheres, and then claim they were part of Sadaam's weapons program.)  Perhaps find some surplus stuff over here stateside, and stamp a French serial number on it, then bury a bunch of it in the desert when no one is looking.  Bush is worse than Sadaam!)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 10:32:55 am by Brent A. Trockman » Logged
Recovering Saint
Guest


Email
« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2003, 07:22:53 pm »

Your sarcasm is brilliant. No of course they should not serve as leaders but maybe they can sit in the back and we will let them partake when they demonstrate their true repentance.  Grin

Anyone remember this rule. But when you tell them to apply it to themselves re: their allegiance to George well you should forgive and forget.  Huh

We never did agree with him anyway. We just pretended to follow him to keep him from giving us a hard time. We intended to warn the sheep if things got too bad. We had everything under control so we saw no need to change things.  Lips sealed

Oh and while we are at it how about adding women to leadership? They have been oppressed for so long why not give them a voice?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 08:00:59 pm by Recovering Saint » Logged
al Hartman
Guest


Email
« Reply #68 on: December 16, 2003, 09:19:51 am »

Your sarcasm is brilliant.
[/b][/size]

Brent, Arthur, Marcia, Rec.St., and All,

     I have watched & read some of the news, but I confess I missed the comparison completely.  Once you pointed it out, I can hardly believe I didn't see it.  It's so obvious, as is your gift for such allegory, Brent.
     Thanks for sharing it.  It's an invaluable point.

al     P.S.-- I think it's that my eyes are still adjusting to the Light...

« Last Edit: December 16, 2003, 10:54:26 am by al Hartman » Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #69 on: December 16, 2003, 11:15:06 am »

Your sarcasm is brilliant. No of course they should not serve as leaders but maybe they can sit in the back and we will let them partake when they demonstrate their true repentance.  Grin

Anyone remember this rule. But when you tell them to apply it to themselves re: their allegiance to George well you should forgive and forget.  Huh

Yes, we all remember this rule, about sitting in the back for a month or two, until the LB's could examine you and declare you fit to partake.  However, they never taught that.  This was something that George taught and they weren't influenced by George....

Those of us who agreed to sit in the back row, and humiliate ourselves before these buffoons are the ones who were influenced by George!  Had we not been under his spell, we would have left the ministry.

However, the reason some Assemblies are still meeting with the same 'ol leaders is because they weren't influenced by George Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Are they still asking people to sit in the back row?  If not why not?  Why have none of them done this?

Brent

PS. I think that if Sadaam was to sit in the back row for a while he could live in one of his palaces again and that his people should be made to forgive him.  Many Iraqi's are Christians and they should fogive Sadaam and not talk about "justice," and stuff like that.  

God is not a God of justice, and he doesn't dwell on sin.  He only builds up, right?  (Please spot the falacy of the preceeding sentence)

Logged
Recovering Saint
Guest


Email
« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2003, 07:18:42 pm »

For the trial of Saddam the preferred method according to many is to have the people of Iraq try him for war crimes.

If they convict him it will probably mean the death sentence.

However if the UN tries him he will not get the death sentence.

Now if George was tried by his victims we would not ask for the death sentence but would probably ask that he never be allowed to lead any Christian gathering again.

The course of action by the existing Assemblies is more like the UN we should just let him go and not bring him to task for the past. Lets just move on.

The problem is that until the people of Iraq saw that Saddam was caught and would be tried they were in fear that he would still have an influence on their life and come back to haunt them. Now that he is in custody they can openly rejoice and say what is really on their heart without fear.

If George is dealt with then people can rejoice and it will expose his Bathist party the existing leaders who are welcoming him. Also it could cause a true recovery of those who are still meeting and still think they are free but are following the old GG programming even though he is not welcome.
Logged
editor
Guest
« Reply #71 on: December 16, 2003, 08:13:31 pm »



If George is dealt with then people can rejoice and it will expose his Bathist party the existing leaders who are welcoming him. Also it could cause a true recovery of those who are still meeting and still think they are free but are following the old GG programming even though he is not welcome.

I agree, except that there are some hardcore geftakysservants out there, who will not reform and intend to carry the "torch of the testimony," for their entire lives.  I think the only hope for these guys is if George repents.  He has already been dealt with in the form of excommunication.

Think back to a little over a year ago; who would have thought he would be excommunicated, for adultery of all things?  (Many of us knew about it, but didn't think the brothers had the gumption....)

In spite of the fact that almost everyone has distanced themselves from George,  his "work," continues on in many places, and there are still people who receive him because he was excommunicated  "the wrong way." Huh Huh  (I wonder if he committed adultery the "right" way?  I KNOW he hid the money the "right" way.)

So, in order to root out his servants, we require George's help.  Same with Sadaam.  He can help us put Iraq on the road to recovery, likewise the Assembly.

BTW----some people like to quote from this website and criticise, etc.  Let's make it clear that no one is advocating the death penalty for George!

Brent
Logged
Recovering Saint
Guest


Email
« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2003, 08:50:47 pm »

Agreed. That would be too severe.

What is needed is for an example to go out and for future lives to be spared his deception.



BTW----some people like to quote from this website and criticise, etc.  Let's make it clear that no one is advocating the death penalty for George!

Brent
« Last Edit: December 16, 2003, 08:59:41 pm by Recovering Saint » Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2003, 07:01:44 pm »

One argument those who opposed the war used was that Saddam was not Osama and that we were going after the wrong guy.  So, it is not surprising the following story did not get much publicity in the press.  It is taken from Marvin Olasky's December 18th column on www.townhall.com.  It also appeared on his blog, www.worldmagblog.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amid the excitement surrounding Saddam's capture, one important story did not get much attention in the United States. The (London) Telegraph headline told the tale: "Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam." The gist: Iraq's coalition government has uncovered documentary proof that Saddam was kept informed of the progress of Mohammed Atta, the Al Qaeda mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, sent Saddam a handwritten memo on July 1, 2001, that summarized the "work programme" Atta had undertaken in Baghdad and noted that Atta's " extraordinary effort" demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

Smoking gun, yes?

Logged
al Hartman
Guest


Email
« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2004, 03:59:57 am »



     Not Iraq, per se, but the War On Terrorism:

             http://www.rock103.com/bin.html

     Check it out Wink

al


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!