response 45 of 81:

Aug 30 08:09 UTC 2003

To summarize, sj2, your arguement is that prior to GulfWar-I (lets hope
there isn't III, inshallah) Iraq had generally a modern ifrastructure
(other than just about all municipalities dumping raw sewage in the
rivers) despite the regime's practice of diverting funds towards its own
ends (even a glutton can only eat so much).  Such was probably the case.
However, you seem to ignore the fact that subsequent to the temporary
halting of active hostilities (the armastice in '91) a state of 'cause
belli' (war) existed between Iraq and the US et al and technically
existed up until the recent events.  Thus the degradation in
infrastructure (while at the same time personally benefiting) is clearly
the fault of the former Iraqi regime's failure to live up to what it
agreed to do.  The fault/blame for the current situation is clearly that
of the former regime not the US et al (and many of the 'et al' were more
than happy to play off the book games for their own personal/national
benefit).  I also think it is fair to say that the US has no territorial
ambitions in Iraq.  Indeed, I'd say it doesn't even care that much about
the oil as the vast majority of that is shipped to other nations
(including India I might point out).

response 51 of 81:

Aug 31 11:23 UTC 2003

Re #48, Even if I accept that several thousand Iraqi soldiers were 
killed within the norms and international treaties, you've just 
answered to one of the many facts of US-Iraq issue. Maybe you didn't 
read the others.

Regarding RUPE's report - You're questioning their conclusions which 
is fine by me. Try explaining the facts they've put in the report. Or 
try explaining the facts posted in the other links.

You can assume whatever you feel like, doesn't matter to me.

"Btw- fewer people died in that attack than material, though the media 
decided to portray it as a bloodbath." - Would you support that with 
facts please?

"I suppose if ....... that you do." - At best, its speculation. 

response 53 of 81:

Aug 31 19:04 UTC 2003

How do you know he's not already doing that?  Such efforts would
probably not be visible on Grex.

response 55 of 81:

Sep 1 00:59 UTC 2003

I don't see any reasons at all why a person from country A, which may have
a nest of problems of its own, shouldn't be free to criticize the problems
of country B without being taken to task for doing so. If the subject of
the discussion is the problems of country B, the discussion should stick
to the subject, and attempts to divert the discussion to irrelevances
concerning country A should be ignored.

response 57 of 81:

Sep 1 05:28 UTC 2003

Few of us can do anything to deal with anyone else's problems and it
isn't  easy to deal with our own. How  are you expecting anyone to  deal with
their country's problems? But there is no  harm in people opining and
suggesting solutions to anyone's problems and I don't think they have to
give equal time to everyone else's problems, or even those of their own
country. There is no hypocracy in this. 

response 59 of 81:

Sep 1 15:27 UTC 2003

"so any amount of opining is just letting off steam"  Is it really true that
you express no opinions about anything you are not actively trying to change?
And do you count expressing an opinion as an act of change?

Seems like a very narrow use of brain power.

response 61 of 81:

Sep 1 18:35 UTC 2003

So now it is just a problem with someone else's enthusiasm? Of course, you
never rail, do you? 

response 63 of 81:

Sep 2 14:40 UTC 2003

To clarify resp:42 and others - Texas would not be able to leave the Union,
only to form new states, not to exceed four in number, under the annexation
resolution.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/