Jabou,
I have tried to respectful to you from the very beginning we started this
debate and it is clearly obvious you are don't intend to reciprocate. I
tried to end the ealier debate because of your earlier accusation (which was
disrespectful) that I was regurgitating all my arguments. You made that
point before I uttered anything that remotely borders on disrespectful. I
understand you are much older than me and it is because of that fact that
I'm restraining myself by limiting this debate with you. You have by now
repeatedly accuse of me of repeating same old stories while you have never
contributed anything seminal whatsoever about this whole debate.

If you are not interested in being cordial, I won't give a shit about
telling you what is on my mind. If you want to know what being disrespectful
means, keep repeating your damn nonsenses. It's becoming a hopeless waste of
time responding to your asinine comments.

Ousman



>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: No "Peace" March for Saddam's Victims?
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:24:32 EST
>
>In a message dated 2/15/03 5:10:03 PM Central Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >  I just hate repeating myself over and over again:
>
>Ousman,
>you already do that by repeating the same things that those who want to
>justify killing do. Let us debate without being disrespectful.
>One has to do a lot of repetition, and presentation of "hocus pocus"
>theories
>that have now been made the job of poor ColinPowell, to try to justify the
>unjustifiable. Its' a lot of work and at the end of the day, one still
>cannot
>make the opponents of war who are growing in number all over the Wold
>believe
>it.
>It is hard work, isn't it?
>
>You wrote:
> >
> > "Let's assume that the US did give Saddam all the nerve gas, the mustard
> > gas
> > and other weapons of mass destruction. Let's assume that he committed
>all
> > those atrocities under the watchful and approving eyes of the US. Now
>let's
> > focus totally on the plight of the Iraqis alone. Under what condition
>can
> > anyone justify their living under such a demented and horrible leader
>who
> > would be willing to do all those atrocities to his own people just
>because
> > he didn't face any objections from a superpower?"
>
>The Superpower should have thought of that when they were supplying and
>facilitating the supply of these deadly weapons. Therefore, sincerity in
>saving the Iraqi population is clearly not  their purpose. If saving the
>population was the motivation, the U.S would join hands with the rest of
>the
>international community to put a team togother to disarm Iraq peacefully as
>proposed time and again by the international community, as opposed to
>dropping tons of bombs on the people they are purporting to save. I think
>it
>is a no brainer if one has to choose between inspections or  tons of bombs
>being dropped to save lives. I bet the average Iraqi would choose the
>latter.
>Another small matter is that the poeple of Iraq did not ask anyone to go
>change their government, and does it not strike you as odd that  a
>democracy
>like the U.S is insisting on dropping bombs to change a regime they have
>nto
>been asked to change as opposed to providing the people with some other
>means
>of bringing about a change of government?
>
>You also wrote:
> >
> > "It's a fact that under previous governments that the US did help Saddam
> > and
> > look the other way when Saddam was committing those atrocities. Just
>like
> > others argued, if the US helped in creating this monster, then it has an
> > even greater responsibility to correct its wrongs by getting rid of him
> > now."
> >
>
>How about accomplishing that some other way instead of taking out the
>population in the attempt? What is the logic in that? Again, one does nto
>save people by dropping bombs on them.
>
>You wrote:
>
> > On the question of war for oil:
> >
> > "I have no problem if the US is fighting this war because of oil. I
>can't
> > imagine the US putting the oil to worse use than the Saddam. So that is
> > that."
>
>Wow Ousman, it is a scary thought if you actually believe this. Who does
>the
>oil belong to, and are we to now believe that the U.S is justified in
>waging
>war on Iraq and killing off most of the population because they will put
>the
>Iraqis oil to beter use than the actual owners of the oil would?
>I pray that you do not believe this.
>
>Jabou Joh
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~