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

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